Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to present a Petition from the Trustees of the British Museum, praying that this Honourable House may grant such further support as may enable them to carry on the execution of the trusts devolved to them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge. (King's Recommendation signified); Referred to the Committee of Supply.

SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to present a humble Petition from 5,000 inhabitants of Sheffield, dependants of serving soldiers, praying that their separation allowances may be increased 100 per cent. over that of 1914.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.

Colonel Collins, Captain Craig, Colonel Raymond Greene, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hinds, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. Rendall, Sir Samuel Roberts, Mr. George Thorne, Major Tryon, and Mr. Tyson Wilson nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Sir Samuel Roberts.]

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.

Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law:

Ordered, That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173a apply to all such Bills:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered, That Four be the quorum:

Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorisedby the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee:

Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—[Sir Hamar Greenwood.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.

Estimates presented for the year 1918–19 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 19.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CONFERENCE (OFFICIALS).

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will grant a Return showing the names of the officials attend-
ing the Peace Conference, the offices they are filling, and the salaries which they are drawing?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I will consider the compilation of such a Return; it will, however, be necessary to refer for full data to other Departments as my Department is only responsible for the permanent officials on its own delegation, and for certain temporary officials engaged for the Conference: not for the naval and military officers and permanent officials from other Departments.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that of the ladies in Paris graded as typists there are said to be a large number with no experience whatever?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, and I think it is highly improbable.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the Peace Conference is costing £20,000 a day more than the South African War?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MISSING SOLDIERS (ASIATIC TURKEY).

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to search the remoter parts of Asiatic Turkey for those who were reported missing in the Gallipoli, Salonika, and Syrian campaigns?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given yesterday to a question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester.

Oral Answers to Questions — 1914–15 STAR.

Major BLAIR: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for War when the general issue of the Mons medal is to be made?

Captain GUEST: The general issue of the 1914 Star has already commenced,
and the stars for the personnel of twenty-four regiments have been dispatched to their respective record offices for disposal. The distribution will be proceeded with methodically until the complete issue has been effected.

Lieutenant-Colonel McCALMONT: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the desire on the part of the recipients of either medal to have the ribbon of the 1914 Star distinguished from that of the 1914–15 Star; and whether, failing any better distinction, the possibility of ordering the former to be worn with precedence over the general war medal and the latter after the war medal will be considered?

Captain GUEST: The question of a distinction being made between the ribands of the 1914 Star and the 1914–1915 Star is at present under consideration.

Sir F. HALL: 38.
asked the Secretary for War if he is aware that the decoration of the 1915 star awarded for active service in 1914–15 on the various fronts has been given to the Royal Medical Corps serving in Egypt and has been withheld from those similarly serving Malta; whether Malta was one of the principal hospital bases for Gallipoli; whether Egypt also was a hospital base for wounded evacuated from Gallipoli; if the personnel serving at the base hospitals in France received this decoration; and if he will state what are the grounds that led to this difference?

Captain GUEST: The question of whether Malta should be considered to be a theatre of war in so far as the award of the "1914–15 Star" is concerned is at present under consideration.

Sir F. HALL: Is not the point as I indicated in my question, and, if so, when can we get a reply on the subject?

Captain GUEST: I think at a very early date.

Sir F. HALL: I will repeat it in a fortnight's time and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer then.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIERS' GRATUITIES.

Sir CHARLES HENRY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether in the case of soldiers who have served in the ranks and have received commissions, the
period they served in the ranks, under existing Regulations, is not taken into account when gratuities are granted; and whether he is prepared to modify these Regulations?

Captain GUEST: This change has already been made, after further consideration by the Government, as announced by Army Order IV., dated 11th February (Schedule paragraph 6).

Mr. HOGGE: Will that be retrospective?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY FUNERALS.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the body of Private F. Morris, 28360, 1st Royal Scots Regiment, who, after three and a half years' service, without leave, recently died at the University Hospital, Southampton, was forwarded to his widow only half-covered and packed in sawdust in a plain wooden case, with an official message that all expenses and fees from station to home and cemetery were to be paid by her; whether the widow had to pawn certain articles in order to pay the cost of a firing party; and whether he will take steps to see that in future more regard is paid to the memory of the dead and to the feelings of their relatives?

Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Govan. As regards the funeral expenses, it is the practice of the Department in cases where, at the request of relatives, the body is sent home for burial away from the station at which the soldier died, to pay what would be the actual cost of a military funeral at the place where death occurred, the cost of transport of the body to the railway station nearest to the place where the burial is to take place, and the cost of a firing party if available. Under this procedure, I understand that a small balance will be payable in this case, and I am taking steps to see that this sum is issued to the widow. I have not yet received a reply to my inquiry regarding the alleged charge for the firing party.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

LABOUR BATTALIONS.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War why the Labour Battalions in this country are
kept in existence; if the gardeners and others forming them have their places waiting for them; if their wives and families receive separation allowances whilst their absent husbands do jobbing work in the neighbourhood of the camps; and if he will say why the men are kept with the Colours under these conditions?

Captain GUEST: Men in labour units, including agricultural companies in this country, are being demobilised in accordance with the recent Army Orders, providing for the armies of occupation, and and are not being retained longer than necessary. The wives of men in labour units receive separation allowances under the rules and conditions in force.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the Labour Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment being retained because it is composed of the sons of enemy aliens?

Captain GUEST: I will make inquiries.

Major E. WOOD: Is it proposed to reinforce agricultural companies to make up for the demobilisation of soldiers employed in agriculture?

Captain GUEST: They are being treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the Army.

BRITISH FORCES (ITALY).

Sir A. FELL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Warif he can make any statement with regard to the British forces in Italy and when they may expect to be able to return to this country and be demobilised?

Captain GUEST: The British Forces in Italy are being reduced to a strength of one brigade of all arms and lines of communication troops, which we are required to maintain by the Allies for garrisoning certain Adriatic ports The remaining 64,000 are being brought away at the same rate as French troops, i.e., 600 a day, this being the maximum capacity of the railways.

ENLISTMENT PRIOR TO JANUARY, 1916.

Mr. J. E. DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to give effect to the speedy demobilisation and discharge from the Army of men who enlisted prior to January, 1916, and who are over thirty-seven years of age; whether he is aware that many of these men are assured of situations in civil life; and what reason exists for their retention by the military authorities?

Captain GUEST: The necessary orders have already been issued, and the men referred to are being demobilised as rapidly as the exigencies of the Service and transportation facilities permit.

CONSCRIPTED MEN PREVIOUSLY REJECTED.

Major Earl WINTERTON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War if favourable consideration can be given to the claims for demobilisation on business grounds of men who returned from foreign countries to endeavour to enlist in 1914, but who were rejected, and can produce their rejection certificates, and were subsequently conscripted when the standard of fitness was lower?

Captain GUEST: Officers and soldiers of the Imperial Army claiming repatriation overseas, whose claims have been or may be approved under existing Regulations, are not being retained for the Armies of Occupation unless they so desire, and will be repatriated as the exigencies of the Service permit. This applies irrespectively of the date they joined the Colours, of age, or whether they enlisted voluntarily or were called up under the Military Service Acts, 1916.

Major WOOD: Is there any provision for the individual release of soldiers serving with the Army of Occupation, except on purely compassionate grounds?

Captain GUEST: I believe not.

TROOPS IN INDIA AND THE FAR EAST.

Mr. JOHN JONES: 32.
asked the Secretary for War whether it is proposed that the troops now in India shall remain there for an indefinite period; whether he is aware that most of these men who enlisted for the duration of the War are suffering from the climate, to which they are unaccustomed; that the head of the Indian Ordnance stated publicly in November last that the men were to be retained for five years; and whether he will consider this matter with a view to these troops being relieved and brought home as soon as possible?

Colonel BURN: 34.
asked the Secretary for War if the promise made to the men of Territorial battalions who volunteered for foreign service in September, 1914, will be kept that they should be given priority of release; and will those men be allowed to return to England on peace being signed, and, if possible, before the hot weather sets in?

Captain GUEST: The urgent necessity of bringing these men home from India and the Far East at the earliest possible date has not been lost sight of. It may be confidently expected that a certain proportion of such men as are entitled to release will return to England at a comparatively early date. With regard to the remainder, it is necessary that their reliefs should arrive in India before they can return. These reliefs are being collected as expeditiously as possible, but some time must elapse before they are ready to leave England. This fact, added to the difficulties regarding provision of transport and danger of moving troops in the tropics during extreme heat, must necessarily result in some delay in effecting the return of all the men concerned.

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many men of the Territorial Army nearly fifty years of age who have been four years in India and cannot get home?

Captain GUEST: I am well aware of the fact.

Major E. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are men in the same category serving in Siberia—what arrangements are made for them?

OVERCOATS.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 36.
asked the Secretary for War what is the sum allowed to soldiers on discharge for the purchase of an overcoat; if a standard price has been fixed for overcoats; if so, what is the amount; what is the cost of the military overcoats now supplied to the Army; and if he will take steps immediately with a view to increasing the allowance under this head to an amount sufficient to enable the men to obtain clothing of a satisfactory and serviceable quality?

Captain GUEST: Civilian greatcoats are given to men discharged as physically unfit for further service. They are not issuable to men dispersed on demobilisation, who go away in their Army greatcoats. The soldier entitled to a civilian greatcoat is issued with a coat in kind, but if he declares that he is in possession of a greatcoat of his own and prefers an allowance in cash, he gets 40s. In these circumstances it is not considered necessary to increase the allowance. The cost of the
civilian greatcoat to the State is 44s. 3d. The cost of the military overcoat is 49s. 6d.

Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, unless the men are physically unfit, they are turned out without their overcoats in this bitter cold weather?

Captain GUEST: That is not quite correct. Overcoats are served to men physically unfit and men who have come back from overseas, and in a great many more cases, perhaps, than the hon. Member realises.

Sir F. HALL: Does the Government give them the coat, or do they have to pay for it?

Captain GUEST: Under the strict Regulations, they are not entitled to it.

Sir F. HALL: Cannot steps be taken at all events to provide proper clothing for these men who have served overseas?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are all these overcoats rotting that are not taken away?

TRANSPORT FACILITIES.

Mr. DENISON-PENDER: 37.
asked whether improvements can be made in the arrangements for bringing Home soldiers who have been demobilised in France and to shorten the time taken on the journey which at the present time takes at least a week?

Captain GUEST: At present the difficulties of transportation in France and Belgium are very great, but every effort is being made to effect improvements. In some instances the train journey overseas, under existing circumstances, takes five days, and in such cases it is conceivable that at least a week would be occupied in reaching the Dispersal Station in this country. These, however, are extreme instances, but in other cases the journey is much shorter and many men have been demobilised in this county and proceeded to their homes on the same day that they left their units in France.

FURLOUGH.

Colonel YATE: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether twenty-eight days' furlough on full pay is granted to the officers as well as to the men on demobilisation; and whether the officer is permitted to wear his uniform for
the same number of days after demobilisation as the non-commissioned officer or private?

Captain GUEST: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.

Colonel YATE: Why should there be a difference in treatment between officers and men in this respect? Why should not officers be given 28 days' leave on pay as well as the men?

Captain GUEST: To a certain extent officers' gratuity is a set off against this furlough pay given to the men.

GRATUITIES TO OFFICERS.

Colonel YATE: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what war gratuity on demobilisation will be given to officers promoted from the ranks during the War in respect of the time served by them in the ranks?

Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Army Order published in the Press on Thursday last, in which it is laid down that a gratuity will be granted for such service.

Colonel YATE: 41.
asked whether gratuities to officers are to be granted on either the temporary rank or the acting rank held on the day of demobilisation; and, if not, what is the reason for differentiation between the two?

Captain GUEST: As stated in the note to Army Order IV. of the 11th instant, this question is under consideration.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that if an officer who gets temporary rank as lieutenant-colonel on the staff gets a gratuity, a lieutenant-colonel commanding a battalion should also be treated in the same way, and that a regimental officer should be treated on equal terms with a staff officer?

Captain GUEST: It is specifically stated in the Army Order referred to that the matter is being kept open, and I am sure this is one of the questions that will be taken into consideration.

Colonel YATE: Why should it be kept open? Why cannot it be settled?

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will
state, approximately, what number and percentage of the temporary officers in the Royal Army Medical Corps have been demobilised; whether the percentage of medical officers set free is equal to that of all ranks; whether the plan of retaining units in existence whilst steadily attenuating in numbers is apt to lead to the retention of an undue proportion of such unit officers as doctors, when the fall of the numbers to be attended to would permit of one doctor serving more than one unit; and whether, in view of the very serious shortage of doctors for the civil population, and especially for the 13,000,000 insured persons, he will consider whether the demobilisation of doctors can be expedited?

Captain GUEST: Since the Armistice 1,502 temporary commissioned officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps have been demobilised and returned to civil life. This represents in all theatres of war and in the United Kingdom 13.2 per cent. of the total number employed, and which compares with 15.1 per cent. of all ranks. It follows, of course, that if units could be demobilised as such it might be possible to release more medical officers, but at the same time it should be understood that the work of medical officers is centralised to the greatest possible extent to avoid wastage. Every endeavour is being made to release as many medical officers as possible, but so long as the present system is maintained of demanding early demobilisation of individual officers, the process must be retarded, as in very many cases substitutes have to be provided.

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 97.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, in the case of a man who has been discharged to the Reserve for civil work and who finds himself unfit to follow his occupation, any provision is made for the man and his family pending consideration of his case for treatment and pension?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir J. Craig): As Class W. of the Army Reserve was closed two months ago, I assume that my hon. Friend refers to men who are now being demobilised and transferred to Class Z. Pending the settlement of the man's claim by the Ministry, arrangements have been made for the local
war pensions committees to assist temporarily, both as regards recoverable advances and treatment, after the period of furlough (twenty-eight days) has expired, provided that the Medical Referee certifies the man to be suffering from a disability due to or aggravated by his war service. This temporary assistance may also be given, on the same conditions, to the man who did not claim the disability at the time of his demobilisation. Advances cannot be made during the furlough period, as the man is in receipt of full Army pay and allowances, and during this period also any treatment required should be obtained from the military authorities.

APPRENTICES.

Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 98.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the delay in providing the promised State assistance to soldier apprentices on discharge, he will, having regard to the necessity of instant action, formulate proposals, e.g., by employing either the Whitley committees or the local advisory committees, to enable such assistance to be rendered in a simpler and more expeditious manner?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. Proposals for assisting those persons whose apprenticeship was interrupted by service in His Majesty's Forces have already been approved by the Government. Negotiations are now being carried on with national joint industrial councils and other committees representative of various trades. It is hoped that, as a result of these negotiations, it will be possible at an early date to secure agreements which will enable assistance to be rendered to returning apprentices.

Mr. HOGGE: When there is an agreement will applications be made to the Ministry of Labour or Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer without notice.

MOTOR TRANSPORT DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.

Sir C. HENRY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War the acreage that at present is being utilised in the Cippenham
scheme; how many men are at present engaged on the works; whether they are being carried on by contractors or by the War Office; and, if by contractors, will he state the names of the firms who are engaged on the work?

Captain GUEST: The acreage utilised at Cippenham amounts to over 600 acres. The number of men including staff, at present employed is 3,400. The building work is being carried on by a contractor—McAlpine and Sons—with certain minor sub-contracts. Separate contracts for special services are let as follows:—

Langley and Johnson—Sewers.
Robinson and Co.—Internal Railways.
Thomas Matthews and Sons—Well sinking.
Herbert Morris—Cranes.
Babcock and Wilcox—Boilers.
Fraser and Chalmers—Transporter gear.
Brush Company—Electrical plant.
Davenport Engineering Company—Cooling tower.
Haden and Son—Heating.

Sir C. HENRY: Have the whole of the 600 acres already been utilised?

Captain GUEST: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: Is the rate of wage that is being paid based on the rates ruling in the district or is it based on some special scale?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Referring to the contract system, is it contract by time and line or by amount?

Captain GUEST: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: Have the contracts been given out in accordance with the original plans or have those plans been modified?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon Member must give notice of that question.

Sir C. HENRY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the present position of the work that is being carried on at Cippenham, near Slough; and whether it is the intention to continue the original scheme?

Captain GUEST: It is proposed to continue the original building scheme at
Cippenham, omitting three large store sheds. About 25 per cent. of the work is completed, with liabilities for materials up to 50 per cent. Some temporary work is in hand to clear the Kempton Park Depot and to enable repairs to commence at Cippenham in anticipation of the completion of the permanent buildings. Accommodation for staff is temporarily in abeyance pending a decision on the question of the future employment of civil working staff in lieu of military.

Sir C. HENRY: Is it the intention of the Government to retain these works permanently or only temporarily?

Captain GUEST: I must ask for notice of that question.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (REFUSAL).

Viscount WOLMER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War why Mr. J. M. Sandy, late Private, No. 292, 9th field ambulance, now residing at No. 1, Sussex Villas, Highland Road, Aldershot, has been refused his certificate of service; whether he is aware that, when Mr. Sandy was called up from the Reserve in August 1914, he was passed fit for active service, and that, after some months of active service, he was discharged from the Army for loss of health, for which he received a pension; and whether he can explain, in view of these facts, why Private Sandy's disability is held not to be caused or aggravated by military service?

Captain GUEST: Inquiries are being made and my Noble Friend will be informed of the result as soon as possible.

COLOURED TROOPS (RUSSIA).

Mr. NEIL M'LEAN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Allies are employing coloured troops against the Bolsheviks; and, if so, what troops, in what numbers, and where?

Captain GUEST: Certain Indian troops have been employed in Trans-Caspia to assist the Askhabad Government in their resistance to the attacks of the Bolshevik forces from Tashkent. The latter forces consisted principally of enemy prisoners. It is not possible to give any further information, as military operations are still in progress.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that the French are not employing black troops in the Ukraine?

Captain GUEST: That was not asked for in the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Whether the Allies are employing coloured troops?

Sir S. HOARE: Are the Bolshevists employing quantities of Chinese murderers against the Allies?

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Are Chinese tortures being employed by the Bolshevists?

Captain GUEST: I must ask for notice of that question.

FORCES IN ITALY (RE-ENLISTMENT).

Mr. T.WILSON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order has been issued to the forces in Italy to the effect that if men who enlisted since January, 1916, refused to enlist for another two years'service their bounty money would be stopped; and whether he will make inquiries into this matter?

Captain GUEST: I am having inquiries made, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

SOLDIERS' LEAVE.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a serious state of discontent exists among the troops in Egypt; that on the 15th ultimo the men in the command depot camp at Alexandria set fire to a cinema theatre and looted the canteens as a protest against their treatment; and whether he will see that steps are taken to grant leave facilities to all men who have had no home leave?

Captain GUEST: Nothing is known at the War Office of the incident alleged in the second part of the hon. Member's question, but if he will let me have any particulars in his possession I will have inquiry made. As regards the grant of leave to this country for men in Egypt, I would refer to the answer given yesterday to by right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich.

Mr. LAMBERT: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Territorials and other soldiers have served for long periods in India and Mesopotamia without leave; and when it is intended to bring such men home?

Captain GUEST: The circumstances mentioned have not been overlooked and all possible measures are being taken to effect the speedy return of these men to the United Kingdom. It is expected that it will be possible to bring a proportion of them home at a comparatively early date, but others must necessarily remain until relieved by the new units which will be prepared for overseas as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will all the men who have been in the East for two years without having been home be brought home before the hot weather sets in?

Captain GUEST: I am suggesting that the Secretary of State should make a much fuller statement upon this question and one or two others.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 35.
asked the Secretary for War whether it is now possible for overseas leave to be granted to officers and other ranks on the same terms and conditions; and whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst other ranks with the present system, whereby in some cases officers receive four leaves during the same period in which their men only get one leave?

Captain GUEST: I am in communication with the military authorities overseas regarding this matter.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the men to be retained for the Army of Occupation are those who joined the Colours after 1st January, 1916; and whether men who attested under the Derby scheme in December, 1915, but who were not called up until some months later, are to be exempted from serving with that Army?

Captain GUEST: The men referred to in the first part of my right hon. Friend's question will be included in the Armies of Occupation, The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

MILITARY GOVERNOR OF COLOGNE (FINANCIAL ADVISER).

Colonel BURN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. F. Tiarks has been appointed financial adviser to the military governor of Cologne; is this gentleman a director of the Bank of England and a partner of Schroeder Brothers, of London; what is his connection with Schroeder Gebruder, of Hamburg; and whether he is aware that he is a grandson of a Lutheran clergyman in Germany?

Captain GUEST: General Sir Herbert Plumer applied for a civilian adviser of financial and commercial experience to assist him on questions of a non-military nature affecting the occupied territory and Mr. Tiarks was selected for appointment as Ciyil Commissioner in view of his special qualifications. Mr. Tiarks is a Director of the Bank of England, and a partner not of Schroeder Brothers but of J. Henry Schroeder and Company, of London, a purely British firm established here in 1804. Neither he nor his firm is connected with Schroeder Brothers, nor with any other German firm. His grandfather was born in Germany, came to England as a young man, lived there the rest of his life, and married an Englishwoman. For further information as to Mr. Tiarks' services in the Royal Navy and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on 26th July, 1917.

Colonel BURN: Knowing the state of public feeling with regard to enemy aliens, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it would have been advisable, to select a British subject without any alien blood in his veins as being far more likely to give advice which would be in the best interests of this country?

An HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Mr. Tiarks is rendering valuable assistance to Sir Charles Ferguson, the Military Governor of Cologne?

Captain GUEST: I have looked very carefully at the reply given on 26th July, 1917, in which the whole of his services in the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve have been set forth at great length and reflect the greatest credit on his performances.

BRITISH SOLDIERS IN COLOGNE (TRAM FARES).

Colonel BURN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, whereas the municipal tramways of Cologne had to carry all ranks of the Second Army free, the men have now been ordered to pay half-fare; and, if so, through whose instigation was this change made?

Captain GUEST: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. I am informed that British soldiers are not required to pay tram fares in Cologne, and that there has been no change in the practice.

ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS (OFFICERS' TRAINING).

Viscount WOLMER: 24
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether temporary officers of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps have been or are going to be selected to undergo the technical course to qualify them for permanent retention in the post bellum Army as administrative Ordnance officers; and, if so, why men who have risen from the ranks to be executive officers should be disqualified from such promotion;
(2) Whether it is proposed to continue the distinction in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps between executive officers and administrative officers; and, if so, will he say the grounds for this system which excludes merit rising from the ranks to the administrative ranks of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps; and
(3) Whether, in view of the fact that temporary Ordnance officers have had to be instructed in their duties by the executive officers of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, he will remove the injustice felt by executive officers of temporary officers being placed over their heads by enabling executive officers to compete for the administrative ranks by abolishing the age limit for admission to the Technical Ordnance course, which at present prevents their doing so?

Captain GUEST: The executive officers of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps are normally commissioned from among the warrant officers of the Corps itself. As the name implies, they are designed to superintend or carry out the executive work of the Corps, under the orders of the specially selected and technically trained
combatant officers who constitute the administrative or directing staff. During the War it was necessary largely to strengthen the numbers of this latter category, and recourse was had to "temporary" officers, whose previous business or professional training in civil life gave promise of their being able, after preliminary training, materially to assist in the administrative work of the Corps. The experiment has been attended with successful results. It has been found by experience in the past that officers well qualified for executive duties have not necessarily the qualifications for administrative employment of an important character, though the last few years have shown that there are exceptions to this general rule. In the future constitution of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps as a tentative measure, it is under consideration to extend to certain carefully selected executive officers the same facilities for acquiring technical and administrative training as is found practicable for entrants from elsewhere.

OFFICER PRISONERS IN TURKEY.

Major Earl WINTERTON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among a number of former British officer prisoners of war in Turkey, who, in accordance with a general routine order and also the King's Regulations, refused to give their parole to the Turks, at the action of certain senior British officers in Turkey who endeavoured to bring pressure to bear upon them to give their parole and, in some cases, gave information to the Turks of the intention of officers to endeavour to escape; and if he will order an inquiry and the attendance before it of all officers and men who were prisoners in Turkey and wish to give evidence?

Captain GUEST: This matter is already under inquiry, and I cannot make any statement at present, as disciplinary action may become necessary.

LONG SERVICE PENSIONS.

Lieutenant-Colonel M'CALMONT: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether an adequate scale of pensions for soldiers on completion of their period of
Colour service has been considered as an inducement to voluntary extension of service, in preference to increased rates of pay, bonus, or bounty; and, if so, whether the direct opinion of regimental officers has been ascertained and considered?

Captain GUEST: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the attractions of pensions as an inducement to soldiers to give long service in the ranks are thoroughly appreciated by the Army Council. I shall not fail to consult regimental officers if occasion should arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

OFFICERS' GRATUITIES.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is great anxiety amongst officers of the Territorial Force as to the terms of a recent Army Order, whereby gratuities are to be paid on substantive or temporary rank, and not on acting rank, and specially in view of the fact that in February, 1917, temporary rank in the Territorial Force was abolished, and that many Territorial officers have held acting rank in service abroad for long periods; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in the matter of gratuities officers of the Territorial Force are not placed at a disadvantage as compared with officers of the New Armies?

Captain GUEST: The special position of officers of the Territorial Force in this respect is not being lost sight of. As stated in the note to Army Order IV. of the 11th instant, the question is under consideration.

Major WOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider also the advisability of paying gratuities to Regular officers on at least as generous a scale as that fixed for officers holding temporary commissions?

Captain GUEST: I will convey that suggestion to the Secretary of State.

EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, SALONIKA.

Mr. DEVLIN: 30.
asked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the treatment of the Bulgarian prisoners of war; whether these prisoners
were released from Bulgaria over four months ago, but have since then been kept hanging about Salonika in connection with an inquiry into the conduct of the prison camp at Philippopolis, an inquiry which should have been completed within a week; and whether, having regard to the privations and sufferings endured by these prisoners in Bulgaria, he will take action to secure their immediate return to these countries?

Captain GUEST: As a result of the Court of Inquiry referred to an officer was court-martialled, and it was necessary to detain certain ex-prisoners of war as witnesses. The court-martial was concluded at the end of January, and instructions were immediately issued to expedite the return to this country of the men who were detained at Salonika.

WAR DECORATION (ARMY INSTRUCTORS).

Captain REDMOND: 31.
asked the Secretary for War whether men who were in the Army at the outbreak of the War but were not sent to France because of their services as instructors, etc., being indispensable at home, are not permitted to wear the red, white, and blue ribbon, whilst officers and men who were trained by them are wearing this decoration; and whether he will take action to remove this grievance?

Captain GUEST: Entry on duty in a theatre of war is an essential condition for the award of every war medal, and I am afraid no exception can be made.

ARMY SERVICE CORP DEPOT, NOTTINGHAM.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities will evacuate the premises of Messrs. Challands and Company, Canal Street, Nottingham, now in occupation of the Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport), in order that Messrs. Challands may give employment to those of their employés who have now been demobilised and thus diminish the unemployment at present prevailing in Nottingham?

Captain GUEST: At the present time a great deal of urgent work is in hand in
the Mechanical Transport Depot at Nottingham, and if Messrs. Challands have workmen unemployed, they can be employed temporarily by the War Department at the works, until the pressure is over, and until the War Office machinery, now bedded in, can be removed and the works evacuated. The matter will be carefully watched and the wishes of Messrs. Challands will be given every consideration.

DENTAL OFFICERS (GRATUITIES).

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether dental officers are treated differently to medical or any other officers inasmuch as they are allowed no gratuities whatsoever; and, if so, will he state why this inequality exists?

Captain GUEST: There is no provision for any gratuity in the contract of service of these officers; but an announcement is about to be made which I hope will be satisfactory to my hon. and gallant friend.

Sir F. HALL: Does that mean that something is to be granted to them?

Captain GUEST: It has the appearance of that.

An HON. MEMBER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a promise that he will make it retrospective?

Captain GUEST: I must have notice of that.

SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give a pledge to this House that no further sale of any State property whatsoever in the control of the War Office will be made except by public auction; and if he will give full particulars of any sales which have so far been made, giving the conditions of the sales, the names of purchasers, and the price obtained?

Captain GUEST: The great bulk of State property in the control of the War Office will be disposed of under the instructions of the Surplus Government Property Disposal Board responsible to the Ministry of Munitions, after the Army
Council has agreed that the property is surplus to requirements. In these circumstances I trust the hon. Member will not press a very overstrained Department for the details named in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

REPATRIATION AND EXCLUSION.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 45 and 46.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing legislation immediately enabling the Home Secretary to order the deportation from the United Kingdom of any alien of any nationality whose continued residence in this country is, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, undesirable; and (2) whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing legislation immediately preventing for a fixed period of years the entrance into the United Kingdom for purposes of residence of citizens of those countries with whom we have lately been at war?

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an Aliens Bill which shall effectively deal with the repatriation and exclusion of enemy aliens; and whether he will undertake that legislation shall be presented immediately and pressed forward so that it may be effective by the time that a Treaty of Peace is signed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): It is proposed at an early date to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject, and in the meantime the special powers in force during the War are being used.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to deport to their respective countries all aliens who are at present interned in the United Kingdom; and, if not, will he state the nature of the discrimination that is to be shown?

Mr. SHORTT: As I stated on Thursday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Twickenham, the general policy is that of general repatriation of interned enemies, and this is now being carried out as quickly as shipping facilities permit. If any are allowed to remain here it will only be for reasons of an exceptional character.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITLES DEPRIVATION ACT (REPORT).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received a Report from the Privy Council advising the removal of the names of the Dukes of Albany and Cumberland from the roll of the British Peerage; if so, when such Report was received; and what steps have been taken to give effect to it?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Report of the Committee appointed under the Titles Deprivation Act was laid before Parliament on the 15th October last, but, a dissolution intervening, the Statutory requirements in regard to it could not be completed. The Report was laid again before both Houses on the 11th instant.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Report rested on the Table of the House thirty-nine days of last Parliament, and, in view of the circumstances that only forty days are required, is it really necessary that the names of these ignoble Dukes should still appear on the roll of the Peerage?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is certainly a curiosity that only one day is needed to make the law binding, but I do not think we should treat Acts of Parliament as if days do not matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSORSHIP.

Mr. LINDSAY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the censoring of correspondence between the United Kingdom and the United States causes delays in the delivery of letters; if there is now any need to maintain a censorship; and, if not, will he take steps to have it abolished?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South Down.

Mr. LINDSAY: If I send my right hon. Friend particulars of cases in which letters from New York were delayed at Liverpool for six days, will he have the matter considered?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be glad to receive the particulars. We quite recognise the disadvantages considered from one point of view; but the advantages are greater.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUBS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. STANTON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps for the removal of all restrictions imposed upon clubs and the social habits of the people by reason of the War, in accordance with his promise of 16th December last?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to a question on this subject yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECONSTRUCTION.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as a necessary preliminary to carrying out agricultural reconstruction, and rural regeneration as outlined in his speeches on the 16th November, 1918, the 23rd November, 1918, and 7th December, 1918, it is proposed to reorganise the Board of Agriculture in order that it may have the status, staff, and accommodation necessary to effectively administer and control; and, in particular, whether the eleven separate offices now under the Department can be centralised in one building in the interests of efficiency and economy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and various proposals are being placed before the Treasury. The position as regards the Board's office accommodation is undoubtedly serious. There are nineteen separate offices, not eleven as stated by the hon Member. My Noble Friend has made representations to the Government on the subject.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: When does the hon. Gentleman intend that we shall have a decision on this matter?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope it will be very soon, but it does not rest with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD HALDANE.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 53.
asked whether Lord Haldane, during his recent visit to Ireland, was commissioned
on behalf of the Government to make inquiries as to the political situation or to interview Sinn Fein or other leaders?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Are we to understand that Lord Haldane was on a purely private mission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I know, he had no commission of any kind from the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR (COST TO BRITAIN).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether, for the purpose of assisting the British delegates on the Inter-Allied Commission now sitting to consider Germany's financial position, they have been furnished with any estimate of the cost to Britain of the War; and, if so, will he state the amount of such estimate?

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether our representatives on the Reparation Committee of the Peace Conference have been instructed as a matter of principle to table the total amount of the British claim against Germany for the cost of the War, without waiting for any decision as to means for payment; and whether he will arrange for the early publication of these figures?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the replies which have been given to similar questions on this subject.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister just before the War gave an official estimate that the cost of the War to Great Britain as £8,000,000,000?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not remember that particular figure. My hon. Friend may rest assured that all these facts are in possession of our representatives at the Conference.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the cost and damage to person and property caused by enemy air raids be included in such estimate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot imagine any committee forgetting that.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to the early publication of these figures?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have answered a similar question to the effect that it did not seem right to publish the amount of the claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. DOYLE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the delegates of the Northumberland Branch Club and Institute Union, Limited, held on 8th February, 1919, representing 75 clubs, with a membership of 33,750, expressing resentment at the continued enforcement of the restrictions imposed upon them as temporary war measures; and whether he can indicate an early date on which the pre-war status of such private social corporations shall be fully restored?

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether the time has arrived when the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) should be abolished, or should no longer be independent of the control of Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to questions on this subject yesterday.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable unrest in the country owing to these restrictions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am fully aware, and I said yesterday that the subject is being considered by a Cabinet Committee, and will be decided as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the inequalities of taxation between married and unmarried women?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer myhon. Friend to the answer which I gave him yesterday on a similar point. The question raised is one for examination by the forthcoming Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Income Tax.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Why should a woman living with her husband pay higher Income Tax than an unmarried woman with exactly the same income living with her sister? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman remedy this defect in the next Finance Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the whole matter in argument.

Sir F. HALL: 84.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if Income Tax is charged on officers' allowances in respect of children; what is the amount of the allowance with and without Income Tax deducted; and if, as the allowance is based on the minimum amount considered necessary for the maintenance of the child, he will take steps to exempt these payments from taxation and to meet cases in which up to now such allowances have been taxed?

Captain GUEST: The rate of allowance is £2 per month per child, up to a total of £96 per annum, for officers not above the rank of captain. Majors receive an allowance at half the above rate. The War Office has no option but to carry out the law in matters of taxation. Any representations as to change in the law should be made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir F. HALL: As the War Office deducts, the Income Tax, can the hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of Income Tax deducted?

Captain GUEST: I will look into the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAIDS (INSURANCE).

Mr. ROWLANDS: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that heavy premiums have been paid by manufacturers, traders, and others for insurance against aircraft; and, as the premiums had to be paid for a year, will he consider the advisability of refunding the amount due on each policy as from 11th November, 1918?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The question whether some refund of premium could be given has been carefully considered by the Aircraft Insurance Committee, and they have come to the conclusion that it is not practicable.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Did the Committee investigate the cases of those firms holding large stocks who have paid large premiums?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The matter was very carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS IN UNITED KINGDOM.

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: 63.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the statement that over 20,000 aliens of enemy and other nationalities are waiting in Rotterdam for the peace settlement to return to this country; and what steps, if any, are being taken to stop them and their Bolshevist propaganda?

Mr. SHORTT: I believe statements to the effect of the first paragraph of the question have been made, If they are founded on facts I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the powers of excluding aliens which I now possess, and which I hope will be continued in peace-time, are adequate, and will be used to deal with the matter.

Sir K. WOOD: 86.
asked the Home Secretary the number of enemy civilians now in Great Britain, the number who are now interned, and the number who have been repatriated since the signing of the Armistice; and whether any enemy aliens have been released since that date?

Sir F. HALL: 95.
asked what is the number of enemy aliens at present interned in this country; how many have been repatriated since the Armistice was signed; and if steps are being taken to arrange for the early repatriation of the remainder?

Mr. SHORTT: The number of enemy aliens at liberty in this country is between 20,000 and 21,000. Most of these are women or men of over military age, or of friendly races though technically of enemy nationality. The number interned is 17,816. The number who have been repatriated since the signing of the Armistice is about 7,400, and the number released since that date is 118, mainly persons of former enemy nationality now recognised as friends, e.g., Czecho-Slovaks, and the rest men interned provisionally and released on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee
after hearing their cases. Repatriation is being carried out as quickly as shipping facilities permit.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 90.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue an Order permitting the free inspection by any British citizen of the local registers of aliens at police stations?

Mr. SHORTT: I think it is necessary to adhere to the established practice that these registers are not available for public inspection, but that the police are authorised to inform inquirers who show good reason for their inquiry whether or not a particular individualis registered as an alien friend or an alien enemy, as the case may be.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he thinks it is necessary?

Mr. SHORTT: It is considered so by my advisers.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 91.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that by an Order in Council, dated the 18th December last, Article 22 c and Schedules V. and VI. of the Aliens Restriction Order, which forbid the employment of aliens in certain trades, were revoked; and will he state why and at whose instance such revocation has been made?

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 94.
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to revoke the Order in Council of 18th December last, by which Regulation 22 c of the Alien Restriction Orders was revoked, or to modify the terms of such Order in Council so that Regulation 22 c may still apply to alien enemies?

Mr. SHORTT: The decision to revoke the Article referred to was taken at the request of the Minister of National Service on the ground that the need for it had ceased. The object of the Article was to divert alien labour from the unessential industries mentioned in Schedule V. of the Order and to ensure its employment during the War in work of national importance. The employment schemes in question ceased to be required with the Armistice, and came to an end in the middle of December; and the existence of the Article then proved a hindrance to the work of the Employment Exchanges. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by reviving the Article.

Sir H. NIELD: 92.
asked the Home Secretary whether a Bill relating to the repatriation and restricting the immigration of aliens has been prepared; and, if so, when does he propose to introduce it?

Mr. SHORTT: A Bill is now under consideration, and will be introduced at an early date.

Sir F. HALL: 93.
asked the Home Secretary if there has been any relaxation since 11th November, 1918, of the regulations in force during the War with respect to the exclusion of aliens from this country; and if he will undertake that no change shall take place without the matter coming before the House for discussion and decision?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. No change will be made before the new Aliens Bill is introduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS (ILL-TREATMENT).

Sir F. HALL: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take steps before the official conclusion of peace negotiations to secure the punishment of those responsible for the ill-treatment and torture of our wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and prisoners of war; whether any of the men known to be responsible for the commission of these crimes are in custody of the Allies; and, if not, will he state what guarantees have been imposed, or are prepared to be imposed, to ensure that such persons shall be effectively available for trial and punishment before peace is concluded?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to add anything to the statement on this subject made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday last.

Sir F. HALL: Is care being taken that this matter shall not be overlooked?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister made it very clear in his speech that action was now being taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPIRITS (SUPPLY).

Mr. STANTON: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the unrest caused by the failure of sick
persons to obtain spirits when medical certificates have ordered such; and if he can state the reason for the withholding of the necessary supply?

Lieutenant-Colonel ROUNDELL: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the resentment and unrest caused by the failure of sick persons to obtain spirits when medical certificates have ordered such; and if he can state the reason for the withholding of the necessary supply?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr.McCurdy): I can only refer the hon. Members to the answer given to the same question on Friday last.

Mr. STANTON: 67.
asked what reasons of public policy or interest now justify the continuance of any restrictions upon the supply of spirits from bond?

Lieutenant-Colonel ROUNDELL: 70.
asked what reasons of public policy or interest now justify the continuance of any restrictions upon the supply of spirits from bond?

Mr. McCURDY: I can only refer the hon. Members to the answer given to the same question on Friday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPER-TAX.

Mr. CROOKS: 72.
asked whether it was intended, under Section 72, Sub-sections (1) to (8), of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to set up a separate administration for assessment of Super-tax to be called the Special Commissioners of Income Tax; and, if so, whether this supplementary administration is necessary, seeing that all the details of income liable to Income Tax are already in the hands of the ordinary Income Tax Commissioners?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The Special Commissioners of Income Tax, as well as the Local Commissioners, formed part of the machinery for assessment provided by the Income Tax Act of 1842. When the Super-tax was introduced in 1909–10, its assessment was placed exclusively in the hands of the Special Commissioners, partly because the taxable income in any individual case would frequently be derived from sources in different parts of the country and partly because of the
reluctance of Super-tax payers to disclose to any local body the aggregate of their income from all sources. For these reasons a centralised body already in existence, with powers extending over the whole of the United Kingdom, was entrusted with the work.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. DEVLIN: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether having regard to the increased and very high cost of living and the consequent privation and hardship caused to the old age pensioners, he will take steps at an early date to secure an increase in the pensions of that deserving class of the community?

Mr. BALDWIN: As I announced yesterday, I propose to appoint a Committee to consider questions arising in connection with old age pensions.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will there be a time limit to the meetings of this Committee, or will they go on for ever?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. HOGGE: Will it be a Departmental Committee, or what kind of a Committee will it be?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will it be confined to old age pensions, or will it include other pensions?

Mr. BALDWIN: If my hon. Friend will put dawn a question as to the terms of reference in a few days, I hope to be able to answer it.

Mr. FRANCE: Did not the hon. Gentleman create the impression that a Select Committee will inquire into the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN (PENSIONS).

Mr. DENISON-PENDER: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that suggestions have been made for the provision of pensions for workmen by means of contributory purchase by employers and men of War Savings Certificates; and, if so, whether he can see his way to have this thoroughly investigated with a view to providing pensions at the age of 60 or 65?

Mr. BALDWIN: This matter is receiving consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Mr. CROOKS: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, before the Supplementary Estimates for that Department are dealt with, he will lay before Parliament the constitution and regulations of the Whitley councils for the several industrial establishments of the War Office; and whether he will take care that due notice is given to the trade unions of the various sections of the civil employés of the number of representatives that, as recommended in the Whitley Report, each of them is to elect to such Councils?

Captain GUEST: The whole question of the application of the proposals of the Whitley Committee to industrial establishments under Government Departments is receiving the consideration of the Government. The War Office will, of course, conform to the principles and regulations adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORAGE SUPPLIES.

Colonel M. J. WILSON: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that a number of horses and mules have been sold out of the Army, he will issue instructions by which a proportional amount of the hay and straw earmarked for purchase by the War Department will be released at the earliest possible opportunity?

Captain GUEST: Any supplies of hay and straw earmarked for purchase by the War Department, which it has been found will not be required, have already been handed over to the Civil Supplies Central Council (Forage Department), which deals with the distribution of hay and straw for civilian purposes. Should it be found that the Army requires less hay and straw than it at present anticipated, the same course will be pursued.

Colonel WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that part of the 1916 crop, which was earmarked for purchase, has not yet been taken?

Captain GUEST: I am not aware of that.

Colonel WILSON: 83.
asked whether an approximate date can be given on which the present restrictions on the buying of hay and straw will be removed?

Captain GUEST: The restrictions on the buying of straw (subject to the maximum prices not being exceeded) were removed by an Army Council Order dated the 23rd January last, which came into force on the 1st instant. It is unlikely that the restrictions on hay will be removed in so far as they concern the 1918 crop.

Oral Answers to Questions — JURY TRIALS.

Sir K. WOOD: 85.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps at an early date to restore to litigants their rights of trial by jury which were suspended by the Juries Act?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): The Juries Act, 1918, has effect only during the continuance of the War and for six months thereafter. I do not expectany such change in the conditions which rendered the passing of the Act necessary as would justify further legislation before the end of that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (PUBLIC DEFENDER).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 87 and 89.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a public defender of prisoners awaiting trial; (2) whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a public defender of prisoners awaiting trial?

Mr. SHORTT: Provision is already made under the Poor Prisoners Defence Act for supplying such prisoners as require it, with legal assistance at the public cost, and I am not aware of any sufficient ground for altering those provisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).

Mr. STANTON: 88.
asked the Home Secretary if he will issue a table showing the reduction in the convictions for drunkenness in each county or district during each of the six months from 1st January, 1915, distinguishing the districts which have been subject to Orders of the Board of Liquor Control and those in which, in each of the half-yearly periods, no orders of the Board were in force?

Mr. SHORTT: I will have the figures desired by the hon. Member set out so far as it is possible to do so, and will send him a copy when completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (OFFICERS).

Major COHEN: 96.
asked the Pensions Minister whether officers are supplied with a second artificial limb free of charge; and, if so, where it can be obtained?

Sir J. CRAIG: Under the present regulations officers are not supplied with a second artificial limb free of charge except in cases where the officer is certified to be on active military duty for the discharge of which he requires the second limb. In such cases it is supplied by the Artificial Limbs Branch of the Ministry of Pensions in the same manner as the first limb. My right hon. Friend is considering the question of altering the present regulation in such manner as to provide that every officer shall be entitled to a second artificial limb at the expense of the State.

Major Sir B. FALLE: May I ask if that also applies to a third and fourth?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think we had better wait for a decision as to the second, and then the others can be brought up.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

POTATOES.

Major WHELER: 101.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board have received a resolution, dated 4th February, calling upon the Board to protect the interests of potato growers, and to ask for an undertaking from the Food Controller that the Ministry of Food shall accept liability and pay for the entire crop of potatoes in accordance with the undertaking given by the Ministry of Food on 1st January, 1918; and, if so, what action has he taken in the matter?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir, the resolution has been received. The President of the Board has been and is in constant communication with the Food Controller with reference to this matter.

Major WHELER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless this question is speedily settled it will have a serious effect on the potato crop for the coming season?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am quite aware of the importance of it, and we are doing all we can to have it settled.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Government repeat with potatoes their policy with regard to wheat and buy up the entire crop and then prevent cheap potatoes coming in from other countries?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is a question for the Food Controller.

PLOUGHING ORDERS.

Major WHELER: 102.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board had received in December a resolution passed by the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture protesting against the attitude taken up by the Food Production Department of the Board in cases of a change of tenancy by refusing to recognise the right of the incoming tenant to compensation for loss of crop on land ploughed out by order on the ground that the order to plough out was served on the outgoing tenant; and, if so, what action the Board have taken to remedy this injustice to the incoming tenant?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Board received the resolution referred to. The right of the incoming tenant depends on varying circumstances which cannot be set out in the limits of an answer. The position of the Board is stated fully in a letter which they have sent to the Royal Agricultural Society, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. If, after reading it, any point remains on which my hon. and gallant Friend is not satisfied, I will gladly reply to any further question.

Mr. LAMBERT: 105.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it is intended to enforce orders to plough land, against the experience of the cultivators of such land, during the coming season?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Board hae decided not to compel farmers as a general rule to plough more grass land this year, but executive committees have the power of issuing such orders in special cases. All such orders are subject to appeal and reference to an independent arbitrator.

Mr. LAMBERT: 106.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether compensation will be available to cultivators of land who, by the order of the county executive committee, ploughed and cropped unsuitable land, losing heavily in the process last year?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir. The Board are liable to pay compensation to any person who suffers any such loss by reason of the exercise of the powers of any executive committee.

Mr. LAMBERT: To whom should application be made in these cases?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It should be made to the Board.

MARKET GARDEN PRODUCE.

Mr. GWYNNE: 103.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that market gardeners arts paying the increased wages as provided by the Corn Production Act to their workmen, he will state what steps are to be taken to secure them a fair price for their produce; and if it is intended in the near future to take steps to prevent the dumping of foreign-grown produce in this country?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Board are considering what steps can be taken to improve the system of marketing fruit and vegetables. I am not in a position at present to answer the second part of the question.

Mr. GWYNNE: Is the Board considering the second part of the question?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is part of a much larger question which affects not only this question of fruit, but other imports, and the matter is being considered by the Government.

HOME-GROWN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.

Mr. GWYNNE: 104.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the probability of the dumping of foreign fruit and vegetables in this country, he will take steps to arrange for preferential rates for fruit and market garden produce grown in this country?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is not within the powers of the Board to determine railway rates or to arrange for
preferential fates for home-grown produce, but they will continue their endeavours to ensure equitable treatment for British growers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that they will continue their efforts to prevent foreign fruit coming into this country?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; it means exactly what I said.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: In the reorganisation of the Board of Agriculture that has been adumbrated by my hon. Friend, will he see that it is carried out so that it is in their power to control such matters?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I must ask for notice of that.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the Board of Agriculture, in considering these matters, bear in mind the great importance of cheap fruit and vegetables to the masses of the people of this country?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; we are quite aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — WART DISEASE (POTATOES).

Lieutenant-Commander CRAIG: 107.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, until the year 1918, the potato crops in the county of Kent had been free from wart disease; whether, in the year 1918, no less than eight centres in Kent were found to be affected with this disease; whether the soil in certain districts in the Midlands, in the North of England, and in Scotland has become so infected that the cultivation of heavy cropping varieties of potatoes is being abandoned; whether the curative or protective measures of the Board have hitherto consisted in the planting of immune varieties of potatoes or some other arable crop; whether varieties of potatoes, themselves immune, may convey, and whether the soil in which they are grown may convey, wart disease; whether infection in the county of Kent has been traced to a consignment of 4 tons of Scottish Arran Chief seed potatoes found to be affected badly with wart disease; whether other, and how many other, consignments of Scottish seed have been found in 1918 on inspection to be diseased;
and whether he will take necessary and effective measures to prevent seed potatoes from northern districts being sent into the South of England?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Wart disease was first reported among the potato crops in Kent in 1914. Eight cases were reported in 1918—including one case in the administrative county of London. In certain districts in the North of England the planting of susceptible varieties has been prohibited, but the approved immune varieties that are allowed to be planted in these areas include some of the heaviest cropping varieties under cultivation.
The chief protective measure adopted by the Board consists in encouraging, and in scheduled areas enforcing, the growth of immune varieties, and this has proved eminently successful. The disease may be conveyed from one area to another either through the "seed" or through the soil, but the Board have no information which would lead them to believe that the appearance of disease in any district may be attributed either to the importation of diseased soil or to the planting of "immune" varieties.
As regards movement from the infected areas of the North of England, under the Wart Disease of Potatoes Order of 1918 the planting of potatoes grown in an infected area is prohibited except in that or in another infected area. In several cases infection has been traced to "seed" imported from Scotland, especially of the "Arran Chief" variety, and the Board have under consideration the issue of an Order prohibiting the movement into England and Wales of "seed" of the susceptible varieties from Scotland without due safeguards.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOTELS COMMANDEERED.

Mr. STURROCK: 108.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state how many hotels in the Metropolitan area are still retained as Government offices; how many have been restored for public use since 11th November, 1918; and how many more he hopes to liberate before 31st December, 1919?

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): Fifteen hotels are still retained as Government offices in the Metropolitan area. No hotels have been restored for public use since the 11th November, 1918, but
the Hotel Victoria has been vacated by the Government staff which has occupied it, and arrangements are proceeding as speedily as possible for its reinstatement as a hotel. Carter's Hotel, Albemarle Street, is to be vacated immediately. The Hotel Cecil will be vacated within two or three months, and the Grand Hotel a little later. I am unable to say how many hotels are likely to be vacated before the 31st December next, as this depends upon the rate of the diminution of the War staffs occupying these premises, a matter entirely beyond my control.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCANDESCENT MANTLE INDUSTRY.

Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: 109 and 110.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether it is intended to introduce legislation to protect the incandescent mantle industry and its raw materials; (2) whether, in the interests of the mantle industry, he will take the necessary steps to co-operate with the Indian Government in securing for British firms the manufacture of thorium nitrate from monazite sand?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question of the precise steps to be taken in respect of the particular industries to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is part of the general question of the policy to be adopted in respect of industries of special importance, which is now receiving the close attention of His Majesty's Government; my right hon. Friend will be glad to co-operate with the Government of India in any measures which may be practicable to secure that adequate supplies from the monazite sand deposits of India are secured to British manufacturers.

Sir J. REES: Is it not the case that the Government of India has arranged for British control of all the monazite deposits in India which are in the native States?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must ask for notice of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER (IMPORTATION).

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 111.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the importation of paper and paper-making materials is still forbidden or restricted; whether the restriction of the supply of
paper is hampering employment in the book and printing industries of this country; and whether, in view of the need for a resumption of the full activity of these industries in order to promote education and to permit the large class of authors to get on with their work, he will take steps to remove all restrictions on the importation of paper and paper-making materials?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The importation of paper and paper-making materials is only permitted under licence. The allowable import has been increased by 50 p.c. since the 1st January. The present supplies of paper are estimated to be only at the rate of about one-half of pre-war supply, thus it is inevitable that the output in the book and printing industries named is on a diminished scale. My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the desirability of a resumption of full activity in these industries, and is at present considering what steps are appropriate to be taken in regard to the importation of paper and paper-making materials.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS (VALIDITY).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 112.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a large number of season-ticket holders were unable to use their tickets during the continuance of the recent railway strike; and whether he will advise the Railway Executive Committee to extend the validity of such tickets for a corresponding period?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Metropolitan District Railway Company inform me that under the conditions of the issue of season-tickets they have no liability in this matter, but that, in view of the exceptional circumstances, they have given instructions that in cases where an alternative route was not available renewals of season-tickets are to be extended for a period corresponding to that during which the holders were unable to travel. Similar instructions have been given by the London. Electric Railway Company.

BELFAST (MILITARY INTERVENTION).

Mr. DEVLIN (by private notice): asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state at whose request the military were brought into Belfast, whether the
demand for military included machine guns, tanks, and other instruments of war; whether, in view of the absolute freedom of Belfast from disturbance, and the good order which prevailed for the last three weeks, he will explain why this wanton and provocative introduction of tanks and machine guns has taken place?

Captain GUEST: Small detachments of troops were posted on the urgent representation of the Lord Mayor of Belfast as a Reserve for the Police in case riot should occur when work restarted, on the understanding that they were not to be used except to support the Police when and if the latter were unable to maintain order. There are no tanks in Belfast and no machine guns have been sent in connection with strike, but the ordinary garrison of Belfast includes six armoured cars, and the troops occupying the gas and electric works are in possession of their normal equipment. I may add that the General Officer Commanding wires: "Necessity for using troops has not yet arisen, and in my opinion the conduct of the people of Belfast, apart from the cutting-off of electric and gas supplies, has been exemplary."

Captain REDMOND: May I ask whether there are not plenty of machine guns and rifles available in the hands of the Ulster Volunteers of Belfast, and whether the authorities could not have seized these and made use of them instead of bringing in the military weapons?

Captain GUEST: I hardly think that arises out of the question.

MEMBERS' SEATS.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask your assistance and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter affecting the amenities and courtesies of the House in regard to the seats of Members? At a meeting of this Parliament, after consultations with you and consultation between various Members of the House, a kind of informal understanding was arrived at that those who are described as Independent Members of the House should occupy this particular bench [the front bench below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House]. Personally, I willingly relinquished a claim that I had hoped to maintain to a seat which I gladly gave up to my gallant
Friend the Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen). To-day, coming to this House at twelve o'clock, I observed that the seat now occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras was vacant, and in my innocence I assumed that by the courtesy and amenities of the House it had been left vacant for me. Coming back to the House, having not left its precincts since half-past twelve, I found the card of my hon. Friend in the seat. I at once proceeded to make an elaborate search for him in all the precincts of the House. It was unsuccessful. I thereupon very gently removed his card to a seat lower down. I continued my search till half-past two to-day, with the assistance of all the attendants and waiters of the establishment, but I was unable to trace him. I came into the House at two thirty-five, to find he had put back his own card. I respectfully ask you, Sir, to give the House some indication as to what the decencies and amenities of the House are in this matter, and to lay down a sort of unwritten commandment that a Member shall not covet another Member's seat.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for South Hackney should have lost his seat so soon. I hope he may soon be in a position to recover it. The general rule with regard to taking seats is, as I think most hon. Members are aware, that, the House being open at eight o'clock, any Member who puts a card in a seat which he desires to occupy, and if he attends at Prayer Time and puts a card in the slot, is entitled to that seat. The old presumption was that Members were in attendance within the precincts of the House during the interval, and perhaps it would be as well to retain that presumption, although we know that on many occasions it is not carried out in fact. But, in addition to that, I ought to point out that by the courtesies and amenities of the House, which have been in existence for a number of years, certain parties or groups have been recognised as occupying certain seats. For instance, the Nationalist party I have personally known for at least forty years to have occupied the third seat below the Gangway on the Opposition side. I do not say they are entitled to that seat, but I think the House generally recognises that, during the long period they have held it, there is a presumption that they ought to remain there. I also understand the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir
Edward Carson) and his friends, occupy the seat below the Gangway on the Government side. In the course of time, no doubt, there will be other groups formed, who, naturally, will take a particular place in the House. I understand the general sentiment and desire of the House to be that unofficial Members, unless they belong to one of these recognised groups, should not invade those particular places, but should leave them for the members of those groups. There is always at the beginning of any new Parliament a difficulty of this kind, and I have reason to believe hon. Members have met with it, but my experience is that in a very short time matters adjust themselves, and, with the usual courtesies hon. Members show to each other, no one can believe that in a few days or a few weeks the matter will not right itself.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Might I call your attention to the notice which appears on the top of the card—
This card, signed and placed on a seat by a Member, will secure it for him on that day until he attends prayers, provided that he does not in the meantime quit the precincts of the House.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I say that I have attended at early hours of the morning for the last seven or eight years, and the hon. Member is quite mistaken in regard to that particular card. It is usual to put on a seat a card of this kind which has no writing whatever upon it, and, therefore, it does not bind the Member who signs the card to be in the precincts of the House in the morning at all.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: Would you Sir, kindly give a definite ruling as to whether or not the rule "as to remaining in the precincts of the House" must be abided by? [Hon. Members: "No."] I respectfully ask, Sir, whether you will give us a definite ruling as to whether that must be observed or not, as, if not, it puts those who are more scrupulous of that rule at an unfair disadvantage.

Sir F. HALL: Might I, with all deference, venture to suggest that, perhaps, it would be for the general convenience of the House that the words "provided that he does not in the meantime quit the precincts of the House" be erased? Because the general practice is that if a Member puts his ticket here in the morning, he is considered to be at liberty to leave the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that, at all events for the present, we had better leave the matter where it is. The presumption is that a Member of the House is present. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that hon. Members do not always remain within the precincts of the House. I think the hon. Member would be well advised to leave, the matter where it is. I will make what inquiries I can, and if I find there is a general desire to abolish the old presumption, I will take care to have the notification struck out in the card. But for the present I think the matter had better remain as it is.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether it is irregular for an hon. Member to put down five or six cards for other hon. Members?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think hon. Members ought to put the names of other hon. Members on cards for them.

Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that there is considerable accommodation for strong men on the Opposition Front Bench, might I respectfully recommend that the Member for South Hackney be made a Privy Councillor in order to enable him to sit there?

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Might I, with respect, ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order relating to the Second Order on the Order Paper—the Rules of Procedure? I respectfully suggest it would perhaps be well if we followed the precedent of 1902, when the Rules of Procedure were then before the House. The Resolution which was then moved by the Prime Minister of that time was, "That the proposals of the Government on the Order Paper relating to the procedure of the House be now considered." I would suggest that that is a more convenient way of starting our discussion of this very important subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles has called my attention to the precedent of 1902, when the House was discussing Amendments to the Rules of Procedure; when the right hon. Member for the City of London was the Leader of the House, and there was then a formal Motion made. There was also a subsequent precedent in 1906, when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman moved these actual Rules which it is now proposed to amend—Standing Order No. 47 and subsequent ones—and on that occasion there was no Motion made. I think on the whole that the former proposal in 1902 was a better one, and therefore I shall propose, when the Leader of the House moves at the conclusion of his speech, to put the Motion in the words the right hon. Gentleman suggested, "That these proposals be now considered." The Debate can then take place with regard to the proposals as a whole. When that Debate has been disposed of, we can then consider the Amendments separately.

Orders of the Day — RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Abolition of Necessity of Re-election of Ministers.)

Notwithstanding anything in any Act, a member of the Commons House of Parliament shall not vacate his seat by reason only of his acceptance of an office of profit if that office is
an office the holder of which is capable of being elected to, or sitting or voting in, that House:

Provided that this Section shall not apply to the acceptance of any office mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, nor shall it affect the provisions of any Act imposing a limit on the number of Secretaries or Under-Secretaries of State who may sit and vote in the Commons House of Parliament.

(2) The enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act and any enactments amending or extending those enactments are hereby repealed.

(3) This Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of January nineteen hundred and nineteen.

The CHAIRMAN: With reference to the Amendments standing on the Notice Paper to Clause 1, it appears to me that several Amendments are aimed at the same thing in different ways, with different periods attached to them, varying from six to twelve months. I think if hon. Members look at the Paper they will agree with me that, from the point of view of drafting, the one standing sixth in order, namely, that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hendon (Major Greame), and the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills), is the best form of drafting, and that, of course, will be capable of amendment if it is desired to insert any other figure. I suggest to the Committee to consider, when I call the first Amendment, whether it would be convenient to come to that later one and take the discussion on it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure the whole Committee will at once defer to your views as to what Amendment is in the best form of drafting. I at once agree to your suggestion, provided that the other hon. Members who have their Amendments down before the one to which you have referred also accept your suggestion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Hackney is quite distinct from all the other Amendments, as it makes the Act only operative for this year. I rather gathered from the speeches on the Second Reading that the purpose of hon. Members who spoke then, and who have put down Amendments, was the same, only differing in the extent of time. I was proposing to ask the hon. Member for South Hackney whether he would agree to take the discussion on the subsequent Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Hendon?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I am in your hands, Mr. Whitley.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds agree?

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I agree, Sir.

Major GREAME: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "House" [" sitting or voting in that House"], to insert the words
Provided that such acceptance has taken place less than six months from the declaration of the polls at a General Election.
I appreciate the delicate compliment in the matter of drafting, and the acceptance by the Leader of the Opposition of this Amendment as a convenient form in which to take the discussion. Also, I suggest, it is, perhaps, the most convenient Amendment to meet the sense of the Committee upon its merits. I do not wish to waste time by again going over the arguments which I adduced yesterday in support of a time limit, but I take just three points which make this Amendment a convenient one in substance as well as in form. In the first place, as against the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Hackney, if it is right at all to have a new general rule on this subject which puts a time limit upon the date of the election of Ministers, I think it is very convenient to get the thing settled once and for all, and to fix that time limit, and let it apply continually whenever the question comes up. The time limit of six months, which I venture to suggest to the Committee is convenient because I do not think that the limit we put upon this ought to be too long. In various quarters the suggestion has been made that the Government may possibly be reconstituted at a later date. I express no opinion as to the merits or demerits of that, but I think it would be convenient to take a period of six months, because I think we ought to ensure that we cover the period before that new Ministry comes to birth, unless it is an extremely premature birth.
4.0 P.M.
Generally, then, I would, in that spirit, submit this Amendment to the consideration of the House. As to the arguments against it, I submit that the whole need of the present situation is met if Ministers now who are about to accept office are relieved of the obligation of returning once again to their constituents. There is very great value in keeping the
old established custom, so that, at a later date when the whole situation has completely changed, Ministers may have to submit themselves to the suffrages of the electors on taking office for the first time. I should like, if I may, to express my gratitude, and that of those who have thought with me in this matter, to the Leader of the House for the broad-minded way in which he yesterday met us and undertook to leave this question to the unfettered judgment of Members. I venture to think that neither he nor any other member of the Government will regret it, nor will the country, if a time limit is maintained. Ministers will thereby refrain from taking advantage of the position in a way which it might cause it to appear, although I am sure it is not their intention, that they were claiming a kind of perpetual right. This, I am certain, they would really be the first to disclaim.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I infinitely prefer the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend to my own, for it avoids the need of a constant resuscitation of this matter. It enunciates once and for all the principle that is in consonance with the almost unanimous feeling of the House yesterday, whilst the general protection given by this Act of Queen Anne to the electorate is, in normal circumstances, worth preservation. There may be special circumstances, especially immediately after the General Election, when these provisions may be relaxed. Therefore I willingly obliterate my own Amendment in favour of that of my hon. and gallant Friend. We thank the Leader of the House for his sympathetic spirit and his offer of a compromise on the question. When a General Election has taken place, and a new Parliament has come into existence, it may be assumed—though logically it may be unsound—that every Member returned at the General Election, inferentially in the opinion of the electorate, is qualified for office in the new Government. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I appreciate the spirit in which this Amendment has been moved and supported. I think I showed yesterday to the House that we, as a Government, had no desire to do anything against its wish, even it we had a
majority; that we desired to carry the House with us. I should like to make a suggestion which goes a little further than the offer I made yesterday on behalf of the Government. I really do not know in which way the vote will go, but my hon. Friend said that the House was unanimous. I do not know, as I say, what the decision will be, but it struck me that there was a sufficient amount of feeling against a complete change. I may be doubtful whether now we should carry the proposal we have put forward, even if a majority were in favour of it. The view I am now going to express is personal. I think it will be the experience of hon. Members here that the House is very jealous of anything which seems to change old customs and which appears to be for the advantage of the Government of the day. I do not think that this particular case does in any special way advantage the Government of the day. Whatever the situation in front of us, if some of the alarming things said about the House of Commons and the Government wererealised, then, indeed, there might be an advantage to some of those who are supporting the proposal. I, therefore, do not put it at all from the point of view of the Government. I put it as my view—as to what we thought was best in the general weal. As I said, I should be sorry to carry, even by a majority, or even without a Division, this matter if the House were against it. Perhaps it would be better on the whole to have two bites at the cherry, to make this proposal now and the other later. The compromise I am prepared to offer is this: I think six months, even from the point of view of those who have advocated the change, is rather short, especially if the six months be from the date of the election. I am, therefore, prepared, if it is the general wish of the House, to agree, on behalf of the Government, without a Division, to accept this Amendment if a time limit is made of nine months.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Major H. BARNES: I should like—[Hon. Members: "Agreed!"]—I will not intervene for more than two or three minutes, but it appears to me that the question of a time limit, as it is put now, is no better in regard to the principle of the Bill. The original Act was passed to provide against a change of opinion brought about by the prospect of office.
That change may come quite suddenly. Conversions have been extraordinarily sudden. Paul was converted in a moment when the dazzling light appeared in front of him. The point here, the whole assumption here, is that future General Elections are going to result in the same sort of thing as the past election has resulted in; that is to say, in the election of a Government with a great majority about whom there will be no doubt at all in the country. That may not at all be the case. You may in the future have a General Election which may result in the election of a number of groups to this House, and no one group may be in a position to carry a preponderance of votes. As a result you may have a Coalition after the election instead of before the election. In the present case the Coalition was before. Everything was perfectly fair and above board. The public know that any man on the Coalition side appeared with a certain programme, and if he takes office there is no doubt about it. But, as I say, you may have a number of groups after the election and all sorts of promises and bargains made on behalf of the Government, and possible members of it. A Government of that kind can be easily formed in the future, but we are dealing now with emergency matters. We are all willing to give the present Government this concession because we can trust it, but we might not be willing to give this concession to another Government. Why should we legislate for the future? If some Government in the future requires this concession, let them come to the House of Commons. I think we should give what they want in this emergency—that is, the twelve months'grace—and leave future Governments to deal with it themselves. I suggest that we should pass this Bill, with the twelve months' grace allowed for, and I think if the hon. Member for South Hackney sticks to his Amendment that will meet the sense of the House, and convey the right impression to the country. My Constituents will be asking me what have the Government done, and I shall have to reply that the first thing they have done is to take away my rights as a private Member, and the second thing is they have taken away the rights of the electors. That is not the sort of thing we want to do. The country accepts these proposals as emergency legislation, and I suggest that we should not accept what has been suggested.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: I desire most heartily to support the Amendment which has been moved, although I have no objection to nine months being substituted. As one who has had some experience of different Parliaments, I ask the House to settle this question once for all. I do not know whether it was mentioned yesterday, but there is another point which could be brought forward. The contingency just mentioned by the previous speaker is not sufficiently likely to occur or sufficiently important to overweigh the advantages of the proposal now before the House. I have seen a good many Governments formed after elections, and it is advisable that they should be able to select the best men for important positions, and new Members for minor positions who may be able to do valuable service to the State, and yet the Government is constantly hampered in their selection by the size of the Member's majority. A Government, as a rule, will not select within a few weeks of a General Election a Member who has got in by a few hundreds or a few tens of votes, and it has often occurred that appointments have gone to the men with the largest majority, although they are not necessarily the best qualified. After a General Election has been held and the man has won by a small majority, that ought not to stand in his way of being offered an office which he could satisfactorily fill. I hope the House will accept this solution of a very vexed question, and at any rate give it a trial.

Major GREAME: May I substitute the words "nine months" for the "six months" in the Amendment which stands in my name?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I say, without consulting my Leader on the right, that I accept the Amendment in lieu of my own Amendment?

Amendment to the proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "six," and insert instead thereof the word "nine."—Agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that covers the next Amendment on the Paper, but I understand the Government have some consequential Amendments to propose.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, in Subsection (1)), to leave out the word "First" [First Schedule to this Act."]
This Amendment is necessary in consequence of the Amendment we have accepted to clause 1, and it will necessitate a further alteration in the Bill as it now stands. The existing provisions contained in Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the corresponding Scottish and Irish Acts, permit Minsters who hold certain offices to pass without re-election to certain other offices. Now the operation of the present Bill is to be limited to a period of nine months, and I shall therefore have to propose that the First Schedule be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out Sub-section (2).—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
It is a very important principle that any proposed change in the Constitution should not be made retrospective except in very exceptional cases. Of course we know perfectly well that an Act similar to this Bill was proposed and carried with retrospective effect during the continuance of the War, but I do not think that that in any way invalidates the principle which I believe has always been maintained in our procedure in these matters. The War did present very exceptional circumstances, and of course it was not reasonable to pay as much attention to constitutional reforms in war-time as I think it is right and proper to do in peace time. If this Sub-section is left in it will have the effect of relieving certain members of the present Government from the necessity of seeking re-election, which they would otherwise be bound to do.
I should like to say I am very sorry to have to do anything that will inconvenience those Ministers who are affected because they are all my personal friends, and no doubt an election at this time would be a very great nuisance, but I do think that it is an important principle that the Constitution should not be altered with retrospective effect if you can possibly avoid it. That principle has not been maintained in our history for nothing, and it is a very great bulwark against jobbery. Of course, there is no suspicion of jobbery in this case, but that is all the more reason why we should enforce this principle. The forms of this House are not unimportant, just as the fact that the Speaker wears a wig or we have a mace on the Table have their meaning, and it does seem, to me to
be important that we should maintain our traditions. I think the right hon. Gentleman has insufficient sympathy with the traditions of our Constitution in matters of this sort, and he has got so used to D.O.R.A., and the powers conferred on the Government during the War, that he is inclined to ask us to "Take away that bauble!" It is extremely distasteful to me to do anything personally inconvenient to those Ministers affected, but I move this Amendment because I doubt if the right hon. Gentleman can quote a single precedent for the alteration of the Constitution, with retrospective effect, in favour of certain individuals.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not the Amendment which the Committee has already accepted cover this point?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. We have been dealing with the future, and this Amendment applies to the past. Therefore I do not think it is out of order.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite understand why my Noble Friend has raised this point, and, indeed, I feel it is quite right, as a matter of protest, so to speak, that the House of Commons should be asked to realise what it is doing. There can be no doubt that any measure with retrospective effect is in itself a bad thing and should certainly not be lightly passed by the House of Commons, but, on the other hand, I think my Noble Friend will agree that in substance the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) was right in saying that the Amendment just carried does in effect have this result. If this Amendment were adopted, the Bill would become absolutely useless, though the House has agreed almost unanimously that so far as the present is concerned it is not desirable that Ministers should have to go back to their constituencies for re-election. All I would say further is that, although it is a convenience to those Ministers, and a great convenience, it was not on that ground that the Government decided to introduce the Bill, but it was on the ground which I gave to the House yesterday. Heavy burdens are falling upon some of the Ministers, as, for intance, the Minister for Labour, and nothing could be worse from the point of view of the public interest than that we should ask these Ministers to go away to their constituencies and neglect the very urgent duty which they are now called upon to do
in order to seek re-election. I hope, under these circumstances, that my Noble Friend will not press his Amendment.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Naturally, we do not want to send these Ministers back to seek re-election, but if, as my Noble Friend has stated, this Bill is brought forward owing to the present congested state of Parliamentary work, why not bring in a small Bill making it unnecessary for these Ministers to go back to their constituencies and not deal with the general principle at all? We had the same question with regard to Ministers during the War and it was perfectly easy to pass such a Bill. If there is a vast amount of work, then I think we might have a Bill brought in dealing with the present circumstances only.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman always seems to deal with legislation as though it were a sort of hand-to-mouth matter affecting the Government of the day only. This is a measure to be put on the Statute Book for all times and to confound the Amendment we have just carried with the Bill is quite ridiculous. The Amendment which we have just carried is that after every General Election there should be a period of nine months during which Ministers can take office without going to their constituencies. The present Amendment says that this legislation shall not be retrospective, and it affects merely the immediate Parliament. The Amendment already carried applies to all future General Elections. The real vice of the Sub-section is that it is retrospective and creates a very bad precedent. Once you allow your legislation to be retrospective in this way there is no end to the amount of jobbery that may take place in future Governments. I remember that in the last Parliament there was an hon. Member who did great good work for the Government in fixing up the silver difficulty by purchasing silver for the Government. Unfortunately, he was a Member of this House at the same time that he had dealings with the Treasury, with the result that he incurred enormous penalties wholly unwittingly. That was brought by a public informer to the notice of the Courts, and he was made to pay over £50,000 in costs. If ever there were a case where the Government should have brought in retrospective legislation to save a man from enormous expense, that was a case in point; but in spite of that, Sir Stuart Samuel had to
pay those costs, his lawyers' costs, and the costs of two or three actions, because two or three public informers were turned down before the lucky one got the money. The Government did endeavour to bring in a Bill to put the matter right, but failed to pass it, partly because it was retrospective and partly because there was no time. It was a very strong case for legislation to indemnify a man who had really committed no crime and who was perfectly innocent. Here we have four Members who wish to get re-elected without the necessity of going to the country. Really, a relief Bill is brought in for those four Members, and it is converted into a bad precedent for another Act of Parliament.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I have listened with sympathy to my Noble Friend opposite (Viscount Wolmer) and to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood), but I do not think that they have quite done justice to the point which my right hon. Friend made when he pointed out the fact that the Bill does make a prospective change in the law. That does very considerably modify the degree of abuse which arises from retrospective legislation. It is one thing to interfere retrospectively for a particular case without altering the law prospectively—that is exceedingly objectionable, and that is the course which would have been taken if Sir Stuart Samuel had been relieved from the penalties which he had incurred—but it is altogether another thing to alter the law retrospectively when you are at the same time altering it for the future. That is very little more than following sound form. I may be mistaken, but if I correctly understand the position even if the Amendment were carried, the effect would be that the Ministers would be obliged to resign their office and be reappointed after the Bill had passed into law. If they were reappointed after the Bill had been passed into law, then under the provisions of the Bill they would, be relieved. I am not sure that would not be the better way of conducting the matter, but it would only be a question of form, and I therefore suggest to my Noble Friend that it is not really worth while pressing the Amendment.

Major O'NEILL: I should like to ask the Leader of the House one question. As I understand it, the Amendment just passed provides that for nine months after a General Election a Member is free to
accept office without again submitting himself to his constituents. What is the effect of that with regard to a by-election? Supposing a man enters the House for the first time at a by-election, and then within a week or so of his taking his seat he is appointed to Ministerial office? Apparently, if that took place nine months after the General Election he would have to go back to his constituents and undertake the very process which we all recognise is undesirable in the present circumstances. I wish the Leader of the House would tell me whether that is so or whether it is intended to do so?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very largely in sympathy with what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, but the point was really raised by you, Sir, in deciding that this Amendment should be discussed. The Amendment of my Noble Friend, intends to do exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend desires. I have tried to find some principle, or something as near principle as we could get in dealing with a matter of this kind. Personally I think the sound principle is to say that we will abolish it altogether, but I do not wish to do that without carrying the whole House with me, and, if we do not do it, then it seems to me that the only possible solution is the one which was expressed by some hon. Member and which was, I think, accepted by the House, namely, the fact that a General Election has just taken place and a majority has been returned for a particular Government is proof that the country at the time is in favour of a man supporting that Government. A by-election might take place two or three years after the General Election, and the country might not then be in favour of the Government as a whole. There is a great deal to be said for the hon. and gallant Member's point of view, but it would not apply in a great many cases, and I am really trying to find something which will carry the House with me. Of course, it is in the nature of a compromise.

Major WOOD: I only rise for the purpose of asking my Noble Friend opposite (Viscount Wolmer) to yield to the request of my Noble Friend on this side of the House (Lord Hugh Cecil) and to withdraw his Amendment. I would emphasise what my Noble Friend has said with regard to the effect upon our judgment of being engaged in passing permanent legislation. After all, we are engaged in dealing with a Statute that has been on the
Statue Book since about 1700. If, therefore, we project our minds forward and realise that this Statute may be on the Statute Book in 2100, I think my Noble Friend opposite will see that it is rather a small point as to whether he should insist on four particular Ministers submitting themselves for re-election. I submit that it would be unfair upon these particular individuals, in view of the fact that we are laying the foundations for the next two centuries, to insist upon penal legislation in their case.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the Committee will accept the position as passed by the Amendment which has already been accepted, because it was certainly not only implied but also expressed that the Amendment was intended to cover the present circumstances as well as apply generally.

Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill) has pointed out an absurdity which necessarily arises from the position resulting from the acceptance of the Amendment. The Leader of the House recognises it and attributes it, as I understand him, to the selection that was made by you, Sir, among the various Amendments. It is, however, admitted that it has given rise to an absurd position.

Mr. BONAR LAW: No!

Mr. R. McNEILL: In my opinion, the position shown by my hon. and gallant Friend is about as absurd as anything can possibly be. At all events, my right hon. Friend accepted the Amendment, in order, as he said, to get a solution which would carry the whole House, or the greater part of the House. I listened with the greatest possible regret to the acceptance of this Amendment by my right hon. Friend. He himself, at the very beginning of the sitting, pointed out that there is no possible worse guide to the opinion of the House than the speeches made, and yet he has allowed himself to be guided by the fact that among the speeches that were made upon the Second Reading there was no voice raised in favour of the Bill as it stood. My belief is that if the right hon. Gentleman had maintained the position which the Government took up when it brought in the Bill, they would have had as large a majority against every one of these Amendments as they had in favour of the Second Reading. By accepting the
Amendment they have rendered the Bill futile and absurd as a permanent piece of legislation. [Hon. Members: "No!"] They have made it effective for dealing with the immediate inconvenience and nothing more, and I can only say that I hope my right hon. Friend is not always going to allow himself to be guided by half a dozen speeches when probably the great bulk of the House is prepared to support him.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a point which really should have been raised when we were on the Amendment. It should not be brought up now.

Viscount WOLMER: I shall be willing to withdraw my Amendment after the appeal made by the Leader of the House, but I should first like to draw attention to one point. If this Section is not kept out, it seems to me we shall be in a very difficult position. The Clause says that any Member who is elected at the General Election shall be free from having to seek re-election for nine months. Then this Section goes on to say, "this Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of January, 1919."But the last General Election was held in the summer, and it seems to me that if those words are not left out, it might have an effect entirely opposite to that which the Government intend.

Sir G. HEWART: I cannot help thinking that that criticism is a little wide of the mark. The importance of this particular Section is not its reference to the date of election, but its reference to the date of acceptance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Right of Certain Ministers to Sit in the House of Commons.)

Where before or after the passing of this Act, a Member of His Majesty's Privy Council has been or is appointed to be a Minister of the Crown at a salary, without any other office being assigned to him, he shall not by reason thereof be deemed to have been or to be incapable of being elected to or of sitting or voting in the Commons House of Parliament, and he shall not, if at the time of his appointment he was a Member of that House, be deemed to have vacated his seat.

Provided that not more than three Ministers to whom this Section applies shall sit as Members of that House at the same time.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, after the word "council" ["If the Privy Council"], to insert the words
"within nine months from the declaration of the poll at the General Election."
In view of the decision which the House come to just now it cannot be necessary to say many words in support of this parallel Amendment. It is obviously just as necessary to impose the duty of consulting the electors in the case of those taking Government office without portfolio as in all other cases mentioned in this Bill. We do not want these appointments to become a refuge for the destitute. We do not want the Government in that, way to be enabled to find employment for a discredited politician, who, for one reason or another, cannot with any prospect of success face a by-election. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, which really carries out the principle of the previous Clause.

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and gallant Friend is not of course aware of the Amendment I propose to move in consequence of the limitations put in the first Clause of this Bill, but when he hears the terms of the Amendment which I intend to propose at the conclusion of this Clause he will, I hope, withdraw his Amendment. I propose to move, after the word "and" ["House of Parliament, and"], to insert the words "where the appointment was made before the passing of this Act"; it will then read, "And where the appointment was made before the passing of this Act he shall not, if at the time of his appointment he was a Member of this House, be deemed to have vacated his seat." If the hon. and gallant Member withdraws his Amendment, and if the Amendment I have just indicated is accepted the effect will be that if a person who is a Member of the House accepts one of the offices referred to in Clause 2 he will be in no better position than that of a Member who accepts an office dealt with in Clause 1.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation of this Clause. Several questions were asked yesterday as to the meaning of the Clause and who were the Ministers to whom it referred; also what necessity there was for adding additional Ministers without portfolio to the Executive. These are large questions of policy on which the Committee is entitled to have an explanation before we go any further, and I will reserve any remarks I may have to make
until the Attorney-General has been kind enough to tell us what he has to say on those points.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right in giving notice of his Amendment to the Clause as a whole, but I think we had better not mix it up with the particular Amendment now before the Committee. Let us deal with the machinery of the Clause first and get it out of the way. Then we can deal with the Clause as a whole.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I know by past experience how sound your ruling is, but I suggest, by your leave, that it would be convenient to the Committee, before we decide on the machinery, to know what the Clause is for.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Before accepting the suggestion that I should withdraw my Amendment, may I say I think we might have a little more definite information as to what the Government Amendment means. It sounded to me, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman read it out, that it dealt with rather a different point and that it made the Clause retrospective. It does not appear to deal with the nine months' interval contemplated by my Amendment. Still, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfies me that it does rope in every Privy Councillor appointed to an office of profit under the Crown, without portfolio, after the lapse of an interval of nine months from the declaration of the poll at the General Election, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment But I am rather afraid the Government Amendment is slightly different.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replies, direct his remarks particularly to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend? I do not profess to be skilled in the law, and am always rather mistrustful when I am invited by lawyers to accept an Amendment across, the floor of the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend on this point, and it is one on which the House generally is anxious, that these words will have the effect of securing that all Members who may be appointed to any office without portfolio shall fall under the same law as that which we have decided upon in Clause 1, I think we shall then be able to accept the Government proposal.

Major HILLS: If we accept the Amendment which the Attorney-General has indicated, why do we want Clause 2 at all? As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, all Ministers, including those without portfolio, are to come under Clause 1, and the only Ministers who are excepted are those who are appointed within nine months of the General Election. The present Ministers without portfolio are to come within that exception, but all future Ministers are to come within the general rule of Clause 1. If that is so, surely the simplest plan would be to omit Clause 2 altogether, and leave Ministers who are paid a salary, but have no office, to fall under the general rule laid down under Clause 1?

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is quite obvious that the Committee is in a real difficulty, because no explanation was given on the Second Reading, although several requests were made for one, as to the meaning of this Clause. But by the ruling of the Chair, the Attorney-General is rather shut out from giving us information which I think the Committee would like to have, and I do most respectfully suggest that if it is the wish of the Committee, you should kindly relax your vigilance on this point while we are told what the Clause is really intended to do. I think it would expedite the passing of the Bill and enable us the sooner to get on with other very important business.

The CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General has very properly indicated the Amendment which he proposes to move later on as an alternative to the one now before the Committee. I must confess that explanation is needed both as to the effect of it and as to the purposes of the Clause, and I think we had better have it now.

Sir F. BANBURY: What is the position under the new Clause? It is there stated that only three Members shall be thus elected. Does the new proposal extend the privilege to more than three?

Sir G. HEWART: With your permission, and without any breach of order either in the letter or in the spirit, I think I can explain the meaning of this Clause with special reference to the Amendment which has been proposed. If hon. Members will kindly look at the Bill they will see that the first Clause deals with quite a different set of offices from those mentioned in the second Clause. The
first deals with cases of Ministers who hold offices which a man may hold and nevertheless be a Member of this House. It deals with offices, the holding of which does not disqualify men from membership of the House, but requires that they shall vacate their seats and seek re-election on appointment to the offices. The second Clause is the antithesis of the first. It deals with offices which do disqualify, and which in the absence of a Statute would make it impossible for the holder to sit in this House at all—

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will you give us an example?

Sir G. HEWART: I shall come to that later on. The second Clause provides that a member of the Privy Council who has been or is appointed to be a Minister of the Crown at a salary without any other office being assigned to him, shall not by reason thereof be disqualified from sitting in this House. Who are these Ministers? They are Ministers who, in popular phraseology, are described as Ministers without portfolio, and the effect of the Clause is to make it possible for Members not exceeding three in number to be Ministers without portfolio. Indeed, I think I could drop the Amendment which I myself have suggested and at the same time suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment. Clause 1 has now been amended and the effect of Clause 2 will simply be to remove the disqualification from the Minister without portfolio, and will place him on the same plane with a Minister who holds office and is sitting in this House.

5.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to be quite clear upon this point. Does this Clause enable such a person as, say, a permanent Secretary of State, who is now disqualified from sitting in this House by Statute, to become a Member of this House and a member of the Executive? If that is so, it certainly is one of the most sweeping innovations of the ancient practice of this House we have had for many a long day? Is that intended?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No; every new office is in the same position.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Let me give a concrete case. Are we enabling by this Clause the permanent Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to hold office under the Crown?

Mr. BONAR LAW indicated dissent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Then let me ask, Is any specific person now holding office without portfolio intended to come under this Clause?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes).

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Committee is entitled to know what position or difficulty he is in that requires some Statute to put him right again. May I ask, is this Clause intended to give such a power as this: that any Member may be given an office without portfolio in the Government and thereby come under the operation of this Clause? I want to know if that is the intention, and, if it is, what particular policy or principle or reason is moving the Government to propose this Clause?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, part of the points raised by my right hon. Friend are technical, and perhaps rather difficult for the Committee to understand, although I thought they had been made pretty plain by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. As regards any new principle, there is nothing of the kind intended nor anything of the kind intended under the Bill. The position is this: As I explained yesterday, this Statute was originally passed to protect the House of Commons against the Crown. One of the methods by which the Crown carried out its influence, very often against the majority of the House of Commons—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Crown was the Government.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The way in which it carried out its power of influencing the House of Commons was to give a great many paid offices to Members of the House of Commons. Under this Act the law would be that certain offices could be filled by Members of the House of Commons, but in that case they must seek re-election. It was also laid down as part of the same fight against the prerogative of the Crown that no new offices of any kind, unless there were a special Statute to that effect, could be held by any Members of the House of Commons. That is the position. It followed, when the principle was adopted during the War of paying a salary to a Member of the War Cabinet who wais not a member of the House of Commons, that it was a new office, and, technically,
the man holding it had no right to sit in the House of Commons. All that this Bill does is to give the Government of the day, with the consent of the House of Commons, the power to appoint up to three Members of the Cabinet without portfolio, who will be in the same position as every other Minister and liable to seek re-election as any other Minister. We are not asking anything new at all. At this moment, so far as I know, there is no immediate intention of appointing any other Ministers of that kind, but I have had experience now of two Governments in exceptional circumstances, and the House, I am sure, recognises on the whole that now, as during the War, the pressure of work is far greater than in normal times, and the pressure on Ministers is far greater than in normal times, and it might be found necessary to add another member of the Cabinet without portfolio in order to enable us to get the work done. All that the Bill does is to make the position the same for such a Minister as for any other Minister who is a member of the Government—that is to say, for a period of nine months after the election he would not have to seek re-election from his constituents. I would point out, further, that these Ministers cannot be paid a salary without the House of Commons giving their permission by vote.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I am entirely in agreement with my right hon. Friend about the merits, but I should have thought the wording of the Clause was a little subject to criticism. I should be interested to know whether there is any legal definition of "a Minister of the Crown," because everything appears to turn upon that. For example, my right hon. Friend told us that a Minister without portfolio, having been given a salary, is deemed to be the holder of an office within the meaning of the Act of Anne. If he is the holder of an office, why is not any member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council equally the holder of an office? It is to be assumed that a person is paid a salary and that he is a servant of the Crown, whether his function is judicial or executive? I do not know that there is any great objection to doing this, but I submit that the Clause might enable judicial members of the Privy Council to sit in the House. They would be indistinguishable in the contemplation of the law from a Minister without office. I will accept the correction
of the Attorney-General upon that point, but I would ask whether it would not make the Bill more workable if some definition of a Minister of the Crown were added before the Bill finally passes into law?

Major HILLS: I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the intention of this Clauseis that where one of these non-portfolio Ministers is appointed nine months after a General Election he has to stand for re-election. The point upon which I wish to be informed is whether that is the effect of the Clause as it stands. I speak with all submission in the presence of the Attorney-General, but I suggest that Clause 2 does two things. The first part says that a non-portfolio Minister can sit in this House—that is a quite distinct and definite thing—while the last sentence in the Clause says:
He shall not, if at the time of his appointment he was a Member of that House, be deemed to have vacated his seat.
Surely those words mean that at no time need he stand for re-election if he comes within the special category of Clause 2. I would direct the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the words of Clause 1, where the words, "vacate his seat" are used to describe a Minister who has to stand for re-election. Therefore, if a man who vacates his seat under Clause 1 is a Minister who has to stand for re-election, the Minister who does not vacate his seat under Clause 2 has not got to stand for re-election. I believe we are all agreed about the merits—and I speak with all deference in the presence of the much greater legal authority of the Attorney-General—but surely the last sentence does a different thing from the first words of Clause 2, and does relieve a Minister without portfolio from standing for re-election at whatever time he was appointed, even nine months after a General Election.

Sir G. HEWART: I can assure my hon. Friend (Major Hills) that he is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the latter half of Clause 2; but it is immaterial, because I have already indicated that I am ready to abandon that part altogether, so as to make the Clause stop at the words
Commons House of Parliament.
I therefore need not at this stage go into what was the particular meaning those words might have added to the Clause. With regard to the question asked by my
Noble Friend (Lord H. Cecil), I am not aware that there is, as a term of art, a definition of "a Minister of the Crown." It may be that there is, but I am not aware at the moment that there is. But there is a considerable difference between a Minister of the Crown as described in Clause 2 and such a person as he mentioned, namely, a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I should have thought that a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was a person exercising high judicial office. It may be that it would be possible to define in a more accurate way precisely what the term means. What I would suggest is that the scope of the Clause has already been explained by the Leader of the House and there is no doubt as to what its meaning is. If the Clause is now accepted, we will endeavour between now and the Report stage, and will put upon the Paper if we have time, a more precise formula which would indicate what is meant.

Mr. SEDDON: Is the Attorney-General right in saying that this proposal for a Minister without portfolio is to apply to only one Member of this House—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes)?

Sir G. HEWART: Do not let there be any mistake. There is one Minister without portfolio already appointed. This Clause, with its proviso, will permit the appointment of two others.

Mr. SEDDON: The Leader of the House stated that the Government had no intention for the moment of appointing the other two. I want to know why there should be three. If it is the intention to cover only one, the word "three" is not required, unless the Government have the intention of placing two other right hon. Gentlemen in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman for the Gorbals Division.

Mr. MACMASTER: I understand that the latter part of Clause 2, namely, the words,
and he shall not, if at the time of his appointment he was a Member of that House, be deemed to have vacated his seat,
are to be omitted. If so, the previous portion of the Clause has a rational meaning, and, if these words had been permitted to stand, I have no doubt whatever that they would have had the effect my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Hills) pointed out.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: In withdrawing my Amendment, which I can only do on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will reconsider the matter before the Report stage, I want to make our position quite clear; because, if I withdraw my Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman withdraws the manuscript Amendment he has handed in, I shall not attain the object for which I moved. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that the Sub-section shall be cut short in the third line at "Parliament." That will not secure our object at all, because what we want to do is to secure that these Ministers without portfolios have to submit themselves for re-election.

Sir G. HEWART: I think I can make it plain. The second Clause is not dealing with re-election, but with disqualification. The effect will be, if the words are omitted, that a Member may become a Minister without portfolio without being disqualified. The rule which will apply to re-election will be the rule in Clause 1, and it would apply no less to him than to another.

Major E. WOOD: May I put one small point for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration? He made it clear that the position of a Minister without portfolio would fall technically under the description of "office of profit," referred to in Clause 1.

Sir G. HEWART: That question has been raised before and has been answered as I answer it now. It is an office carrying a salary and an office of profit.

Mr. SEDDON: Will the right hon Gentleman satisfy my curiosity as to why the figure three has been inserted?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did my best to satisfy the curiosity of my hon. Friend if he was in the House. I said that at this moment there is no intention of appointing any other Minister to that kind of office, but I added that the work of Ministers, so far as my experience goes, is carried on under greater pressure than at any time during the War. We therefore ask for the power to appoint such Ministers and that is all. I hope the hon. Member is satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: Leave out the words,
and he shall not, if at the time of his appointment he was a Member of that House, be deemed to have vacated his seat."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "three" ["not more than three Ministers"] and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
The effect of this would be to limit the number of Ministers without portfolio to one. I have listened to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, but this may be an opportunity for a fuller statement as to why there is any particular reason for naming this number three more than any other number. What special charm is there in this particular figure? What is it that causes them to put down this figure instead of another? I think it is true that Ministers are worked very hard indeed in these days. So far as I am able to form an opinion, that is a very well-grounded statement, but I conclude, also from some observations, that some Ministers are worked very much harder than others, and I think it highly undesirable to extend this practice of creating Ministers without definite Departmental duties for which they can be responsible to this House in the ordinary way. In view of the undesirability of that practice, I move this Amendment, if for no other reason than to give the Leader of the House an opportunity more fully to state what particular cause there is for proposing this figure.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment, because I really do not think he should ask the Government to agree to it. I have said quite clearly that at this moment there is no intention of appointing another Minister of that kind, and the reason we put "three" rather than any other number is that we had the feeling that the House was entitled to say there must be a limit to the number of Cabinet Ministers of that kind who are created. We recognise just as much as the House that it is not a desirable kind of arrangement if the work can be done in any other way, but it really is not unreasonable to give the Government as much discretion as is involved in this number. Perhaps the Committee will understand our unwillingness to give way on this point when I point out that I myself should be filling the position of Cabinet Minister without portfolio but for the reason that if I had that office I should not be able to come to the House till the Bill had been passed. It really is the fact that the work now—I can hardly explain why it should be so, but it is so—of Ministers is, if anything, more
pressing than it was at any time during the War. The result of that may be that we shall find it impossible to get the co-ordinating work of the Cabinet, which is done by individual Ministers, properly done unless there are additional Ministers who have nothing else to do except attend to that kind of work. Surely it is not asking the Committee too much to give such amount of confidence in the Government as to allow us to have a right to appoint that number of Ministers of this kind, especially as they cannot be paid a salary except by a vote of the House of Commons. I hope therefore the Amendment will not be pressed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman's plea with regard to national needs, of course, has very great weight with us, but I wish to place it on record that I regard the power contained in this Clause of creating new Ministers without portfolio, without a very definite position, as one which requires the exercise of the very greatest care, and one which I regard with very considerable apprehension.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Short Title) and First Schedule (Excepted Offices) agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Section fifty-two and Schedule H. of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102).

Section fifty-one and Schedule H. of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 48).

Section eleven and Schedule E. of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 49).

Question, "That this be a Schedule of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE RULES.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That the proposals of the Government relating to Procedure be now considered."
It may be convenient that upon the first of the Government's proposals in relation to procedure I should make a statement as
to the scope and the method of the proposals as a whole. The object of the proposals is at least threefold. It is, in the first place, to save the time of the House. It is, secondly, to accelerate the progress of business, and also it is, by avoiding waste of time and energy, to improve the real opportunities of criticism and of discussion. I will deal first with the new scheme in its relation to Bills. The method suggested is to have more general recourse to the services of Standing Committees. The proposal of the Government is generally to refer to Standing Committees all Bills, with four classes of exceptions. They are Finance Bills, Consolidated Fund Bills, Appropriation Bills, and small Bills of a non-contentious kind. It follows, obviously, that if this proposal be adopted the number of Standing Committees must be increased-Fourteen years ago the number of Standing Committees was raised to four. Under the proposals which are now made the number is to be raised to six. Of these Standing Committees five are to be, so far as subject-matter is concerned, Committees of general scope, and one is to consider Bills relating exclusively to Scotland. Of how many members ought these Committees to consist? As the House is aware, the present practice is that a Standing Committee shall consist of sixty to eighty members, together with fifteen added members, specialists as they are sometimes called, with reference to particular Bills. These Committees and these members would obviously make a very heavy demand on the membership of this House at a time when there are many other heavy demands. Therefore, upon consideration, it has been decided and is now proposed that the number of members on the new Standing Committees should be forty, and that the number to be added with reference to particular Bills should be not fifteen but ten. The effect will be that a Standing Committee will consist of fifty members, and it is proposed that the quorum should remain as it now is, namely, twenty.
It is proposed not only to add to the number of Standing Committees but also to improve their procedure. I refrain at this stage from entering into details, but there are two matters which I might mention. In the first place, under the present practice, Standing Committees, except under certain conditions and within certain narrow restrictions, may not sit while the House itself is sitting. Under
the new scheme, if it be adopted, a Standing Committee like a Select Committee, and within like limits, will be able to decide for itself the question whether it shall continue to sit while the House is sitting. A second observation upon that particular matter is this: It may be said that if that course is followed difficulties may arise at a time when Divisions are being taken in this House. Accordingly that difficulty is to be met by the provision that it shall be the duty of the Chairman of a Standing Committee to suspend the sittings of the Committee during Divisions in this House, in order to enable hon. Members to give their vote. From the simultaneous labours of these six Committees, at least two results are expected, and I think reasonably expected. One is an improved efficiency in legislation, and the other is a considerable saving of the time of the House.
Let me mention some other proposals which it is hoped may lead also to a saving of time. In the first place, under the present practice, as hon. Members are aware, upon the consideration of a Bill reported from a Standing Committee, there are certain Members who have the privilege of speaking more than once. It is proposed to get rid of that privilege and return to the practice of one speech only. In the second place, where a Bill is to be recommitted, it is proposed that the Motion to recommit shall be made not as it is now, but within the conditions and restrictions of what is called the Ten Minutes' Rule. There is another proposal which has for its purpose the saving of time, and that is that where a Division is pressed against the general wish of the House, an unnecessary Division, we propose to discontinue the present cumbrous and very often impossible practice of recording the names of Members who challenge the view of the Chair. The words which are employed in the Standing Order as it is now are "frivolously and vexatiously." We propose to substitute the word "unnecessary." Everything which is frivolous or vexations in this House is unnecessary. But it may be that there are things which are unnecessary, though they fall short of being either frivolous or vexatious. The next proposal, which goes beyond the desire to save time, though that is a purpose which it is hoped it will accomplish, is to make the power of selecting Amendments a permanent and no longer an occa-
sional attribute of the authority of the Chair. But it is not proposed to give that power to the Chairman of a Standing Committee. It is next proposed to extend the power of the Closure, so as to apply to new Clauses in Committee, and it is proposed to get rid of superfluous Divisions upon the stages of Second and Third Readings. For example, a Division having been taken up on the Question that the word "now" stand part, it would not be the practice, if the new scheme is adopted, to proceed to a second and superfluous Division upon the Question that the Bill be now read a second time. There are, but I do not recapitulate them now, a series of provisions to the same end which are a little technical, and will call for individual explanation as they arise; but taken altogether, our hope is that they will add not a little to efficiency and economy of time.
I pass to the remaining head of these proposals, and that is the group of proposals relating to Supply. The House will observe at once that the proposals of the Government in this respect are not proposals to amend the Standing Orders. They are proposals for this Session only. The keynote of the whole matter is that Estimates are to be referred to a Standing Committee or Standing Committees, subject to a very important exception. The exception is the Votes, which determine the number of officers and men to be employed for the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, and their pay; in other words, Votes which are familiar to Members as Votes "A" and "1."With regard to these excepted Votes the proposal is that they should be dealt with in Committee of Supply. They are Votes which have this feature in common, that they have to be obtained before the commencement of the financial year to which they refer. The Minister in charge in each respective case will make his statement in Committee of Supply as to the programme for the year. The second proposal—but I do not dwell upon it—is that Mr. Speaker will leave the Chair for Committee of Supply without putting any Question except when it is necessary to come to the House for a Vote of Credit. The effect of these proposals taken together will be, it is hoped, to reduce the number of days which so far as the House and the Committee is concerned are necessary for Supply. It is propose, therefore, to reduce the twenty days which are at present allotted under
the Standing Orders for the business of Supply to twelve days. It may be asked if these proposals are carried, how will these twelve days be spent? They will be spent in these ways—the Committee of Supply will deal with the excepted Votes, the very important Votes which I have mentioned; they will deal further with the Report stages of all Votes, and they will also deal—and this is an essential element in the Government's proposals—with particular Votes which from time to time may be withdrawn from the Standing Committee in order that they may be considered in Committee of Supply.
With regard to the rules of procedure which will be observed in the Standing Committees which deal with Supply, they will be the same as those which govern the procedure in Committee of Supply itself. If that scheme is to be worked out, it is clear that some method will have to be followed in order to determine what Estimates and what Bills are at particular times to be considered by Standing Committees. The proposal is that Estimates shall be sent to Standing Committees in the same way as that in which Bills are sent. In other words, Mr. Speaker will allot the Estimates, or it may be part of Estimates, to a Standing Committee, or it may be to more than one Standing Committee, and thereupon the Committee of Selection will add ten members, with special reference to the subject-matter of the Estimate or the Bill, as the case may be. It will be the duty of the Government to decide from time to time whether upon a particular day Bills or Estimates are to be considered in a Standing Committee. I pass over other and minor points. For example, it is proposed to exempt Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means and other money Committees from the Eleven o'Clock Rule. It is proposed to expedite the procedure in connection with financial provisions in Bills. There are other detailed proposals of a similar character.
The essence of the whole matter, as the House will observe, is that, whether with regard to Bills or with regard to Supply, there is to be a much greater use than hitherto of the labours of Standing Committees. This, in the briefest detail, is the scheme which is now proposed. It is at least a sincere and careful effort to accomplish a purpose which is not only useful, but has become necessary. A great
Member of this House once said, "The time of the House of Commons is the treasure of the people." The scheme which I have outlined is a modest attempt to preserve that treasure by saving that time.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The House is indebted to the Attorney-General for the lucid way in which he has rather glided over, and the attempt which he has made in a very limited space of time to give an exposition of a very difficult subject. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with his closing remarks in which he claimed that this was a modest attempt, because it is a sweeping innovation of some of the most fundamental rights, I will not say privileges, of the people of this country as expressed through the House of Commons. The present position of this House, and the pressure on the House, I hope, is not a permanent state of affairs. Sooner or later there must come, and the quicker the better, a large measure of devolution whereby, as Question Time showed to-day, many of the subjects with which this House has to deal will be referred to other bodies knowing the subject on the spot, and thoroughly capable of dealing with them.
This House was elected under conditions entirely unprecedented. The appeal was made to the country on two sides—first that we were dealing with the enemy outside, and that we had to carry through a vast scheme of social and domestic legislation. I venture to predict that while we shall be successful in dealing with our outside difficulties, this House can never grapple adequately with the vast scheme of social reform until there be some means of devolution. I hold this above all other things that under the pressure of that vast scheme of social reform we should not give away in this House some of the most important privileges and nights of free expression which have been handed down to us for centuries and which were fought out between this Parliament and the Executive, as then represented by the King, but as now represented by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet; and we should see to it that under the pressure of these two factors we should give away nothing which is vital to the free deliberations of this great Assembly. The Executive Government to-day is more powerful than it has ever been before. It has a very large majority in
this House, but I am glad to note that that majority is exhibiting signs of independence and responsibility which I am sure the people of the country will welcome heartily.
We must also bear in mind that a charge has been frequently made against the House that it is not a business house, and it has been said, "We want a business Government. We want business men coming to this House." I am sure that many hon. Members will feel, what I felt when I first came here about twelve years ago, that the business cannot be the kind of business to which men have been accustomed outside. You cannot settle affairs here by pressing a button, getting in a typewriter and dictating this or that. That is not the House of Commons. We must be careful to bear in mind that one of the merits of this House is the equality of each Member. Mr. Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, when he was a Member of this House, and Members of all parties have always insisted on that. You cannot settle things here by simply saying "This is business. We must get on with it." Members are equal, and why? Because they are not here individually, but as representative of their constituents. It is most necessary for us to see that we maintain the great asset which has been handed down to us of a free deliberative assembly. Above all, it is of the utmost importance at the present time that there should be no vital matter hidden from publicity in this House.
As I stated yesterday, this House is in many respects unrepresentative of many shades of unpopular opinion. There is a large measure of agitation going on outside the House. It is of a very dangerous character, mainly because it is unrepresented here, and if we seek in this House, without very great care, to give another weapon to them, another chance of saying "these things are done sub silentio, our liberties are being curtailed, great privileges are being abrogated, and free discussion which formerly took place is no longer allowed," we shall indeed give them the opportunity which they seek. That is the trouble of it. That is what they want. They want to degrade this Assembly to take away our representative institutions, and establish others which they will use in an unconstitutional and a most regrettable manner.
Do not let us be carried away by this cry of, "Let us have a business Govern-
ment above all other things, and let us get on with the work." That is quite right, and in connection with these proposals I shall do everything in my power and with such experience as I had during the past six or seven years in the Chair, to promote efficiency. But, above all other things, I have learned in that Chair the tremendous usefulness of the power of the private Member to express his views fully here on all vital matters that affect the State. I am a House of Commons man first, last, and all the time, and I always shall be; and I make this appeal to Members coming here for the first time. Let them remember that they have become members of an assembly which, with all its demerits, is the great democratic legislative example to the world. Do not let them be carried away by appeals to smaller issues or by suggestions that this House has lost its power, and that its dignity is gone. I hope that they will be worthy of the traditions of the past, and apply their sense of responsibility to these very grave and sweeping proposals.
Coming to the proposals, I regret that no suggestion is made for shortening Debate in the matter of repetition of speeches. One knows how frequently the House has been wearied, and business has been delayed by Members who have not heard one single word of the Debate coming in, picking up a few suggestions made by some hon. Member who has sat through the Debate, and repeating ad nauseam arguments and statements that have been made over andover again, through the long weary hours of a particular Debate. Under Standing Order 157 power is given to the Chair to stop tedious repetition. I know how very difficult it is to exercise that power, but if the House of Commons would back up the Chairman in the matter, a very great and sweeping improvement would speedily be inaugurated. I approve heartily of the proposal to increase the number of the Standing Committees. Splendid work has been done in the Standing Committees. Hon Members are there able to express opinions on the real merits of questions in a manner and with a usefulness which are often absent from our Debate on the floor of the House. I agree entirely that that is a very useful change, but it can be dealt with in more detail when we arrive at the particular proposals.
The question of the selection of Amendments is a very important matter. The House will perhaps excuse a personal reference to my own experience. On three Bills of the most passionately difficult character opinion was extremely divided—the Parliament Bill, the Welsh Church Bill, and the Insurance Bill. With regard to the Parliament Bill and the Welsh Church Bill, I think that on the whole the House will agree that the power of selection of Amendments was exercised with fairness, and on the whole with a good deal of efficiency. But it does throw a tremendous weight of responsibility on the Chair, and everybody who has any experience of Committee work in this House knows that it constantly happens that the course of debate shows unexpectedly that certain Amendments would involve certain things which must be dealt with. It is, after all, a very great compliment to the representative character of the House. There is scarcely a subject at all debatable or of real, vital interest to the country of which we do not sooner or later find some Member who is a master of it, and that man has often stood by and not spoken for weeks or months or, perhaps, a year. But he applies his particular knowledge to the subject, and you quite suddenly find the whole atmosphere altered and the conditions sometimes fundamentally changed.
6.0 P.M.
I do say, that the power of selection of Amendments, if you give the Chairman the necessary assistance, is a useful aid in conducting the business of this House. I do not know whether it would be possible for a Committee of Members to assist the Chair in the selection of Amendments. There are not many opportunities for Members to act in these matters, but no doubt some rule could be devised. I must refer to the proposed addition to Standing Order No. 26,
A Motion may be made by a Member in charge of a Bill (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having been withheld) that the Chairman do forthwith report the Bill with or without Amendments to the House, or if the Bill be under consideration on Report, that the Bill be ordered to be read the third time, as the case may be, and the Question upon any such Motion shall be put forthwith and decided without Amendment or Debate.
That is a most sweeping, drastic and fundamental change. What has been the case which has been presented, either as to before the War or since the War, which
suggests that such a power as this is necessary? Has the House of Commons misbehaved itself to such an extent? I venture to say that during the past ten or twelve years the output of legislation by this House is far in advance of that which any other Parliament ever achieved. I want to know what is the case for this proposal?
I come to the last point—we shall have further opportunities of dealing with the subject in Committee—and that is the extraordinary proposal for dealing with our financial affairs, or, as it is put, Business of Supply. What has been the foundation of the power and prestige of this House? There is no question that there has come from the struggle of this House with the King all the great freedom that has been won by this country. What is it proposed to do? It is proposed, except in one or two Votes and such other Votes as the Executive for the time being—mark that—may, with a majority behind them and at their will, keep in this House—that all others have to go up to these Committees. If the House of Commons adopted this proposal, it would be selling its birthright for a mess of pottage, and I hope that proposal will be drastically dealt with by the House as a whole. I would ask hon. Members, so many of whom are new, to realise what are the real principles which lie at the root of this great question. I do not think my right hon. Friend suggested that this proposal is founded on the ninth Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. If any hon. Members think for a moment that the proposal has any relation at all to the recommendations of that Committee, let them disabuse their minds of any such idea. The proposal of the Committee was that a Committee should be set up which should deal with the Estimates before they came on to the floor of the House, to report on them, and work with, but not in substitution, for, the Public Accounts Committee, that this Committee should have professional assistance, and that sitting there as business men they should examine an Estimate and, having examined it, make their report on it to the House.

Sir F. BANBURY: And witnesses could give evidence.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This is a proposal to take from the House the real power of control of the Executive. Let us get
down to the real fact, and that is that it is taking away the control of the Executive. What are the conditions in which we find ourselves with regard to the control of the Executive? We have lost all count of value. When we talked formerly of hundreds of thousands we now speak of tens of millions. What appreciation has the highest financier in the world of what eight thousand millions means? He does not know. We do not know what are our values. During the last four and a half years there has been a pouring out of the national capital, and not only of our capital, but the pledging of the capital of generations yet to come. Is this a time, when we have lost our ideas as to values, to hand over to a Committee, sitting upstairs, the financial powers and privileges of this House?
The suggestion is made that we can deal with these things on the Report stage. Those of us who have had some Parliamentary experience know what that means—how difficult it is on Report stage to alter what has been done upstairs or downstairs. There is the limitation of debate, with the right to only speak once, and the necessity to have a seconder for an Amendment. The whole tendency of Report is to take the thing as done, and to get on with the next thing. While every possible assistance will be most heartily and freely given to the Government to bring our machinery as far as we can up to date, to deal with the tremendous pressing problems that lie before us I will not assent, but as far as I can, will do everything possible to prevent the fundamental rights and privileges of the House of Commons being handed over to any Executive, however powerful. I make this appeal to private Members—that they are now face to face with a really serious question, and that at the outset of their Parliamentary careers they should be careful to preserve those rights handed down to them by their forefathers' fathers, and which they preserved in their fight against the Crown. I would ask them to preserve them now against the tyranny of any Executive however powerful it may be.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I think everyone will agree that the Government are fully entitled and indeed bound to bring this subject before the House at the outset of the Session. The procedure is certainly in need of reform and no one can doubt,
with the very heavy load of legislation which necessarily arises after the War and on the great business of reconstruction which is in prospect, that the House, if it is to deal with that at all, must deal with it by amended procedure. I should like to say how cordially I am in agreement with one of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and that is, when he spoke of the great importance of upholding the credit of the House of Commons with the public and the people generally. It is not merely lamentable but it has become dangerous that the House of Commons has lost the moral authority that it at one time so abundantly possessed over the great mass of the people of this country. Really, we have been getting used to the spectacle. It is one of the most curious and interesting things in the historical development of our country that whereas the House of Commons in, say, the eighteenth century was a very narrow body, and, I am afraid, rather a corrupt body, and a body defaced by many blemishes, yet it was quite indisputably the greatest assembly in the country, and exercised immense authority in the whole country, both in the laws it passed and by its authority over the people. Now we have a House of Commons elected on the widest possible franchise and the Members returned to it without any circumstances of corruption, and they themselves being above the suspicion of corruption, and with all those circumstances so much in favour of its authority, yet it seems to have lost the unique and magnificent position which it had in the eighteenth century. One of the curiosities of the history of that time was the enormous interest that was taken in the House of Commons on occasions by its Members. I came across an extract the other day from Horace Walpole, in which he mentioned how he had sat from two in the afternoon until five o'clock the next morning for the purpose of attending a Debate. He was rewarded about half-past one by hearing the Elder Pitt, make a speech that afterwards became famous, and in which he compared the Coalition of the time to the junction of two streams like the Rhone and Saone. I am sure if we had a Debate of that kind to-day, and if, let us say, the hon. Member for South Hackney, who resembles the Elder Pitt in popular acceptance outside and independence of thought, compared my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to any number of
streams, we should listen with wearying impatience. In those days they felt not merely respect but enthusiasm for the House of Commons, in spite of the artificial and self-indulgent state of society. They spent sums of money, which now seem almost incredible, in order to carry elections. Tens, and in some cases hundreds of thousands, were spent on a single election at that period. That is a measure of the esteem and power which the House of Commons has to-day largely lost. One of the immediate reasons for that is that the House of Commons has to some extent lost its own self-esteem and does not think so highly of itself as it used to do.
The main criticism I would make of these proposals is that, like all the other proposals to reform procedure—and I am afraid I have heard a great many now—they are really addressed to making it easier for the Government to carry on their business. They are not addressed to the fundamental weakness of Parliament and to restoring to the House its own self-esteem. Yet I believe the Government would find it to their advantage if they would try and reform procedure after the other theory, because this loss of self-respect and self-esteem makes obstruction on the great scale a possibility. If the House of Commons really revered itself as it used to do obstruction would only remain as a rarely used remedy against genuine oppression on the part of the Government, and it would cease altogether to be part of the ordinary tactics of Parliamentary life. Part of the Government proposals do seem excellently conceived in order to restore to the House of Commons its efficiency and dignity. I mean that part which relates to the larger reference of Bills to Standing Committees instead of Committees of the Whole House. I think every Member who has had experience of Committee of the Whole House on a controversial Bill will agree with me that that part of the procedure has really broken down. Committee of the Whole House on a Bill does not seem to me to work well either from the point of view of the Government or the critics of the Bill. In most cases it is conducted by very empty benches, from which those who desire to criticise the Bill may speak with the voice of men and of angels without producing the slightest effect, because there is no one to listen to them except the Ministers themselves, who are indisposed, of course, to be convinced. I have
seen a great many Bills, and I think I have quite accurately described the common procedure in Committee of the Whole House. It does not give the critics a good opportunity; it wearies out the Government, and it gets the Government by mere exhaustion into a stubborn frame of mind, so that they say, "We cannot go into that." They find that it saves time to resist every Amendment that is proposed, and after a time, when the end of the Session begins to approach, they apply the guillotine or the Closure, or something of that sort, and from that time the proceedings become a perfect farce. Everybody knows that the moment the Closure falls by common agreement the business of Committee of the Whole House becomes unreal.
Therefore I am strongly in favour of sending Bills up to Standing Committee, and I do not think the Government go far enough. I would send to Standing Committee every Bill, without exception, on which it is anticipated that there is going to be any discussion, including the Budget Bill. If the Government would do that, they would save so much Parliamentary time that they could afford not to press some of their other proposals, which are, I think, open to criticism. They could afford to leave Supply with the full number of allotted days and not take the course of sending Supply upstairs. But I do not think you can work Standing Committees by allowing them to sit while the House is sitting. I do not think it matters if they slop over half an hour, as sometimes happens, but to sit really at length while the House is sitting is, I believe, unworkable, and it is eminently inconsistent with the great principle which we ought to insist upon, of treating Parliament with respect. It really amounts to saying that it does not much matter what the House is doing downstairs if the Standing Committees are to be allowed to sit during the sittings of the House. Many of the most able Members being engaged upstairs could not attend to the business of the House itself, and the effect would be to give an impression that that did not very much matter. It really is part of that treatment of Parliamentary procedure of which I am afraid I must say that the most distinguished Members of this House have been guilty in the past and which has done so much, as I think, to lower the House in its own respect. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary (Mr. Balfour) and Mr. Asquith, both
being sentimentally devoted to the House, have done very much to lower the respect of the House for itself by constantly treating its Debates as though they did not matter two straws, as though any party advantage were sufficient to set them on one side, and as though the main thing were to get the business done in a workmanlike way rather than to have the Debates properly conducted. If you have 240 Members engaged upstairs you cannot have the business of this House properly conducted downstairs, and it does not look as if you really were treating the Debates of the House with respect. I think it will be found that the burden thrown on particular Members in a controversial Session would be quite overwhelming. I suppose the Standing Committees would meet at about eleven-thirty or twelve o'clock, and a Member who was taking a prominent part, the sort of part that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) took in opposing Home Rule, would be sitting upstairs on one controversial Bill all day and downstairs on another controversial Bill all the evening. I do not think you can really work Standing Committees on that basis.
The suggestion which I make to the Government is that they should send all Bills to Standing Committees, of the existing size, but that they should use the time spent in Committee by adjourning the House as soon as Questions are over on Tuesdays and Wednesdays during the months of April, May, and June, and I have put down a Motion to that effect, but forgot to mention the days. Then the Members could go upstairs to their various Standing Committees and do the business of those Committees, and I believe that would help the Government enormously in getting through their business. They would have a long evening before them, and would have eight or ten Standing Committees at work simultaneously. It would be immensely better for the ordinary Member of Parliament, like so many hon. Gentlemen now who have come here with high hopes that they are going to be of great service to the public and to do a great deal of valuable work, and whose hearts are practically being broken by being kept in attendance with nothing in the least interesting to do. We have all seen how intensely depressing and mortifying it is to Members of Parliament, animated by
the highest patriotic intentions and honestly zealous for the public service, to be obliged to stay here in order to vote either for the Government or the Opposition but not able to do any useful or efficient work of themselves. Under the system that I have tried to sketch that would not arise. Members would either be on one or two important Committees dealing with one or two important controversial Bills, or they would not. If they were, they would feel that they were taking part in very important work, and would indeed be able to do important work in Committee, because the individual has a much better chance in Committee of taking part in the business than he has down here. On the other hand, if he was not a member of the main controversial Committees, after four or five sittings the minor Bill he was put on would be finished with, and then he would not be obliged to attend at all on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and would not weary himself by useless attendance here. It would immensely save the House of Commons from becoming in the summer months, as I am afraid it has so often become, a jaded and worn out assembly, and when Members returned in July to the full sittings of the House you would find the House fresher and in better humour and more efficient than it is accustomed to be in that month at the present time. Therefore I am convinced that if the Government would consider that plan they would find it a better plan than their own, both in their own interests to get their business on more quickly, and in the interests of the House at large, and it would give them, I think, a much more efficient criticism and discussion of Bills, including Budget Bills, than they get on the floor of the House in Committee, because in Standing Committee you have this great advantage, that the Members vote after listening to the Debate. People outside the House of Commons think that always happens, but in this House we know that we hardly ever vote after hearing the Debate, and quite commonly we vote without even knowing anything about the question upon which we are voting; but that does not happen in Standing Committees. There you have the great advantage that people vote after hearing the arguments, and however tight party discipline is, and however well disposed people are to support a particular proposal, if it is destroyed in argument they
really cannot bring themselves to vote for it after they have heard the ease argued out, and accordingly the criticism is much more efficient and weighty, and more often succeeds in getting the Government to modify their proposals, and occasionally places the Government in a minority without any of the shock to the Government's general credit outside, and consequent injury to its usefulness as a Government. Therefore I am convinced that if the Government would extend their proposal of the Standing Committees as I suggest, and would drop the part of the new Rule that gives Standing Committees leave to proceed during the Sittings of the House, and instead would pass a Rule adjourning the House on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in April, May, and June after Questions, and devoting the whole time of Members to the work of the Standing Committees during that period, they would do good service both to themselves and to the business of the House.
There are two other important proposals on the Paper. One is the selection of Amendments, and there again I think the Government are right in supposing that this is the least invidious way of interfering with the liberty of Members of Parliament in criticising a Bill. But selection of Amendments as we have known it is done at very short notice by the Chair, so much so that, if my memory serves me aright, it often happens that Members do not know when they enter the Chamber whether their particular Amendment has been selected or not. Human nature being what it is, that is a very irritating thing to Members, and it makes the relations between the Chair and Members very difficult, because everybody, of course, thinks their Amendment a nice one, and has a paternal fondness for it and they come down with their speeches prepared in their own head and are then told that the Chair does not think it suitable. They feel they are being unfairly treated. Moreover, there is this additional disadvantage in that process of selection at short notice, that as the pressure of time grows greater on the Bill, and as it becomes clear that the Government will have some difficulty, and there is doubt whether there will be enough time in which to finish the Bill before the end of a Session, there comes a very strong temptation to the Chair to select more and more strictly and to cut out more and more Amendments. The pressure of the Government
upon the Chair, not very consciously exerted, is a real thing, and it becomes very difficult for the Chair to say, "You have managed your business so badly that you will have to lose your Bill, as I cannot cut out any more Amendments." I should like to have the selection of Amendments on Report made deliberately by the Speaker, it being required that everyone who wishes to move an Amendment on the Report stage should put it down five days after the Bill is reported from the Standing Committee. If they did not do that, the Amendment would not be considered at all. The Amendments being thus on the Paper, the Speaker would go through them and select those he thought worth discussing on the Report, and his task would be made much easier by consultation with the Chairmen of the Standing Committees, who would, of course, be familiar with the discussions in Committee and would be able to indicate to him those Amendments of special importance. Then the Amendment Paper, being settled, would be printed in the ordinary way, and the Bill would be taken, and every Member would have received the Paper on the morning, at any rate, on which the Bill was coming on, if not earlier, and would come down to the House knowing what Amendments were to be discussed and prepared to speak on those in which he was interested. There would be no friction, and there would be no power of pressing the Speaker at the last moment to cut out more Amendments. The Paper would be fixed, and the Government would have to make up their minds to find time in which to finish it. So handled, I think the selection of Amendments would be both dignified, consistent with the efficiency of the House, consistent with the just claims of the Government, and consistent also with full liberty of debate.
The third important proposal of the Government is to send the Supply to a Standing Committee, but I am afraid I think that is a proposal which neither in their own interests nor in the interests of the House can be defended. I hardly think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can have sufficiently considered it. Committee of Supply is really a Committee of grievance. It is a Finance Committee certainly, but it is not a Financial Committee in the sense that it scrutinises the minutiæ of public expenditure or can do so. All the Debates I have ever heard in Committee of Supply,
except perhaps purely obstructive ones on Supplementary Estimates, at any rate in recent years since the allotted Supply Rule was adopted, have been criticisms of a perfectly legitimate and non-obstructive character of the policy of the Government, sometimes the main policy of the Government and sometimes the policy of a particular Department of the Government. How can that be done in Standing Committee, either from the point of view of the critics or from the point of view of the Government? How can a Standing Committee criticise the policy of the Government which, if it is successfully criticised, must involve either a change of the Government altogether or at least the resignation of the Minister defeated? How could you allow a Standing Committee to carry the reduction of a Minister's salary, or even of a Vote of importance in Supply, without the ordinary consequences following of the Minister, or perhaps the whole Government, retiring? If that is to follow, you make the Government responsible, not to the Whole House, but to the Standing Committee—both in principle and in fact a most intolerable, position. What you want is not a Standing Committee, but one of two things—either the Whole House in Committee or on Report, or a Select Committee for the purposes of financial scrutiny. If you set up a Select Committee with special powers of scrutiny, I have some doubt as to whether it is a workable proposal in the matter of machinery, but, at any rate, it is quite a different proposal. A Standing Committee could not do that sort of work.
On the other hand I do not think a Standing Committee could possibly do the work of the Whole House, and I am surprised the Government has put forward that proposal, because that part of the machinery of Parliament has certainly not broken down. Ever since the twenty days of Supply have been allocated there has been no obstruction, and there can be no obstruction. I do not think twenty days of a Session too long to devote to administrative criticism. If the Government think it is too much this Session because of the special circumstances, they have only to put down a Sessional Order assigning a smaller number of days. But I am quite sure that, given the principle of allotted days, you are perfectly clear of any interference with the normal progress of Government business, and perfectly secure against anything like
obstruction. Therefore, I hope the Government will not press that proposal. I am sure they will find that, neither in their own interests nor in the interest of the House, would it work well. And I confess I rather hope they will not press the proposal to allow a Minister on the Report stage, or—if they do not adopt my plan—in the Committee stage, to get up and move that the whole proceedings shall be brought to a close and the Bill summarily put through. I think that is to institute guillotine closure as part of the ordinary practice of the House, and guillotine closure in its least scientific and intelligent form. If what they mean is that it should be open to them to close down the whole proceedings of the Committee, then I think they must revise the drafting of their Rule. As I understand it, it might be done immediately on entering upon the Committee stage or the Report stage of a Bill, and the whole proceedings might be brought to a close on a summary Motion. Though it is true that the consent of the Chair is a certain safeguard, I think it is agreed that too much weight should not be thrown on the shoulders of the Chair by putting it into the position of even having to consent to or refuse Motions of that character.
I believe that if the Government would try the experiment, which I have tried, of going through the business of a Session—I took the Session of 1896, which was a singularly crowded Session, in which the business did break down—and see how it would work under the procedure I have tried to sketch, of sending every Bill to a Standing Committee, and of adjourning the House after questions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in April, May, and June, they would find that without any alteration in procedure they were perfectly able to conduct the business of Parliament and secure a Prorogation early in August. The relief would be enormous, and I believe the gain in efficiency would be equally great. Though I am sure it would be uncongenial to his temper, and very unlike his usual manner of conducting the House, to seek to force on a new House of Commons very drastic changes in the procedure in the House, it is of course my right hon. Friend's duty to put before the House those proposals which he considers really necessary to conduct its business with efficiency; but I really hope he will not press on a necessarily inexperienced House drastic changes such as may be
tolerable to us who support the Government in a Parliament in which the Government has a great majority, but will not be equally tolerable when he and I sit on the other side of the House, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party is Prime Minister, carrying through measures of which we very much disapprove. We should think of the future and not only of the present, and should safeguard, with the efficiency of the House, due liberty of debate and due right of minorities.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: The two last speakers both approve the principle of the extension of Grand Committee procedure, and, as one who has some little experience of Committees upstairs, perhaps the House will allow me a few moments to state my own opinion. The Government find themselves in this position: the War being over, no end of social reforms are necessary, and it has been rightly pointed out that, unless new machinery is provided, they cannot be carried out this Session. The only way is to send Bills to Grand Committees. I agree with the two last speakers—and I think the House will agree with them—that you cannot try to get the Grand Committes to sit when this House is sitting. I am perfectly certain that I am right in that. Grand Committees, as a rule, sit at eleven o'clock or half-past eleven in the morning, and you can get them to sit till half-past one or two o'clock; but you cannot get a quorum after lunch. What will happen if the rule is that they sit on? A quarter to three comes, and questions begin. A large number of members on Grand Committees will have questions of their own in this House, and want to hearthe replies of Ministers, and I think they ought to hear them. Then at a quarter to four there is going to be, perhaps, an important speech by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House. They want to hear it, and they ought to hear it. The Noble Lord who has last spoken said very rightly, and I agree with him very largely, that the difficulty might be overcome by this House suspendingg its sittings when the Grand Committees sit. That would require a thoughtful working out, but I think his idea is a useful one, perhaps not on the two fixed days he mentioned, but on the days for which the Minister in charge of the Bill may move in this House. I see an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brecon (Mr. S. Robinson):
On such ways as the House shall determine, after questions, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, witnout Debate, the House may resolve itself into Standing Committees, which shall sit simultaneously.
That is very much the same proposal as the Noble Lord made, but with this difference, that you do not have two fixed days a week for three months, but leave the procedure to be fixed by the Government. I think that if that question is fully gone into by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the whole difficulty will be met.
There is one other point upon which I want to lay stress, and it is the important point which the Noble Lord has made about moving Supply upstairs. I think that is a very great mistake. I had the honour of serving last Parliament on the Committee on National Expenditure. That Committee went very carefully into the question of the Estimates being examined before they came into Committee of Supply in this House. There was no proposal we made to move Supply upstairs. The proposal was that there should be two Committees of fifteen each, that these should examine all the Estimates and make reports from time to time on those Estimates, and that those reports should come on in this House in Committee of Supply, when the proper time arrived. The Committees, of course, would have power to call witnesses. What we proposed was that these Committees should have professional assistance, and that an Examiner of Estimates should be appointed who should be an official of this House in the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor-General. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was chairman of a Committee which sat before the War. That Committee failed, and failed very largely because there was an absence of professional assistance—

Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. I cannot admit that it failed. I do not think any of the Members who were on the Committee would admit that. I think we did very useful work, but I think we should have done a good deal more useful work if we had had professional assistance, as my hon. Friend says.

Sir S. ROBERTS: In order to arrive at a decision on the question, the Select Committee on National Expenditure invited opinions from important Members of this
House and officials. Of the twenty-five replies received on the question as to whether there should be a Standing Committee, nineteen were in favour of it. We sent this question to all the officers of the House, including Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, the Deputy-Chairman, the Clerk, and Sir William Gibbons, all of whom supported. The five ex-Financial Secretaries to the Treasury who sent replies took the same view, as did Mr. Henderson, writing on behalf of the Labour party. Four out of the five Whips who were consulted, including my right hon. Friend who is now the Chief Coalition Whip, Mr. Gulland, and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Parker), Junior Lord of the Treasury. They were all of the same opinion, and Sir Sydney Olivier (writing on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor-General), Sir Charles Harris (Assistant Financial Secretary of the War Office), and Mr. Harold Cox agreed to it. Mr. Asquith had no objection to the experiment being tried, though he was not sanguine as to the result. The dissentients were the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, and the Joint Secretaries of the Treasury, together with Sir T. Gibson Bowles, and Mr. Sidney Webb. The Chief Government Coalition Whip (Lord E. Talbot) said he was "not particularly enamoured of the proposed scheme." The principal objection of these gentlemen was that if this Committee were set up, it would take away the responsibility of Ministers and of the Government of the House. I hardly think that that is a sufficient reason.
What this House is entitled to as representing the taxpayers of this country is to see that their money is properly expended, and to keep control. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University spoke about putting things back. Perhaps it may not generally be known that the Committee of Supply in this House was set up in the time of Charles I., for a special object, which was to give this House an opportunity of discussing the grievances and differences between the Crown and the people. It was not intended that the Committee of Supply should deal with Estimates, but that it should give the House an opportunity of airing their grievances against the Crown which at that time, with every reason, made the House eager for economy. Every scrutiny was made, for they wanted to allow the King as little money as possible because he was extravagant. But after Parliament had
gained the victory all this inducement was gone. There was no conflict then between this House and the Crown, and I am afraid that since that time, and at present this House has not been so eager about economy. In fact, it has been the other way. In my experience, during the time I have had the honour to be a Member of the House, Members have always been anxious to talk about economy, but when some scheme has been brought forward in the House the money has always been voted. I think that if an Estimates Committee or two Estimates Committees were set up they would do very useful work. They would make reports which a Committee of Supply would be unable to make; but this would not be done if, as the Governmnet propose, the Committee of Supply were removed upstairs entirely. We, as representatives of the people and the taxpayers of this country, ought to, hold fast to the control of the money. In fact, it is our duty to do so. We are sent here to do it, and if we do not do it, it is quite right that our constituencies should reject us.

7.0 P.M.

Major E. WOOD: I am sure the House has listened with much pleasure to the speeches made on this subject. The hon. Baronet who spoke last had the advantage of great experience, and I think the criticisms which he made were criticisms to which the House will be disposed to attach much weight. I was interested in the speech delivered by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University. It has been a mark of all the speeches which have been delivered so far this afternoon that they have pointed to one section or another of the proposals of the Government, and made suggestions for their improvement. What interested me about the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University was that, with certain notable exceptions, as to which he was able to suggest improvements on the Government scheme, it appeared to me that he was in the position of welcoming a revision of the Rules of Procedure, substantially in the direction suggested by the Government. If that be his position I am bound to say that I broadly differ from him. I am quite prepared to admit the necessity, but it is to me an unpalatable necessity. I shall endeavour to show to the House as briefly as I can why I think that in this matter—though I admit that for the moment there is no immediate alternative—the Government
have and are suffering for their own neglect in the past. I do not wish to labour the necessity of some such action as this. It is a necessity of which all the Members of Parliament who have been in the House, or have watched the procedure of the House, are profoundly conscious. One device after another has been invented to make debates possible, but even with all the new inventions of Parliamentary genius, Parliament has perpetually been finding itself more and more unable to cope with its work. I once saw an interesting survey by a Parliamentary observer, who said that between 1900 and 1919 Parliament had passed 318 Acts in 276 days, with regard to which he made the comment that no deliberate Assembly could deliberate at that rate unless it was forbidden to deliberate. When all this is gone through I think it is true that there has been a great increase in the amount of business left to administrative order as against legislative action. We have been compelled to forego attention to matters like reforms in India, and a host of other Imperial matters. That will not grow less in the time to come. All this that I have suggested is a cumulative burden on the ordinary Member of Parliament himself, who is more and more expected to be both ubiquitous and omniscient, and no Member of Parliament can be one or the other.
Further, I suggest that not the worst side of the evil is found in the effect on the Ministers and on the Government Departments which have to sit and work in a tornado of daily questions, whereas they ought, according to all sound rules of business, to be attending to their Departments, preparing legislation and supervising administration. I suggest that in these circumstances the Government had two alternatives before them. One was to say, "We will maintain in this House direct responsibility for all the existing business coming before it, and for all the business that will come before it during the circumstances of the present day, but we shall make it possible to get through that business by new Rules of Procedure, placing a limit upon the attention that you, private Members of Parliament, may give to it." Or they might have said, "Procedure will be remedied, not by limiting the attention that you pay to business coming before you, but by limiting the business coming before you, to which we invite you to pay attention. In other words, to reduce and decentralise your
work in order to give proper consideration to such work as you retain." That was the alternative which was suggested by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). It is, of course, a proposal that has been made before and to which I wish again to call the attention of the House. The proposal has been known under the name of federal revolution. It has been brought forward from time to time, the object being to distinguish between matters that are of necessity reserved for the consideration of this House and of other matters that it may be possibly right and wise to delegate to subordinate Legislatures. This is not the time nor the occasion upon which that proposal should be argued in detail. Suffice it to say that I do not think I should be far wrong if I said that the broad difference between that proposal and the proposal of the Government is that the Government says, "Reduce the amount of attention you pay to your work," whereas I would say, "Reduce the amount of work to which you pay attention, and do it properly."
That is the general objection, and it is reinforced by one or two general considerations. Why I said, at the beginning, that I was not enamoured, as seemed to be the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, with the great extension of Standing Committees, was for this reason. It is, I think, uncontestable that the merts or demerits of Bills emerge, not from the examination of general principles on Second Reading, but from the close scrutiny of the actual method by which it is proposed to translate these general principles into law. Every Minister has found that expressions of good will on Second Reading are not at all inconsistent with far-reaching differences of opinion at later stages, and why I object to these proposals is that they have the effect of withholding consideration of the actual method of translating general principles into law from all but a very small number of selected Members of Parliament. The result in working is bound to be two things. In the first place, you are running straight enormously to increase the value of the other House as an appeal tribunal from this House in matters of legislation and administration. I am not sure whether that is a good thing from the point of view of Parliament as a whole, and of this House. In the second place—and it is a more important thing—you must inevitably strengthen the ten-
dency—of which, I think, all who watch the working of Parliamentary institutions are aware—that more and more the pressure on the Executive and the control of the Executive is beginning to pass from private Members of Parliament into the hands of great organised corporations, outside this House, of industry, trade, finance, and so on. That, to my mind, is not helpful. Everyone who was in this House, and who heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) the other day, must agree with him in deploring the action of men who turn to violent, direct methods rather than use the constitutional method of the ballot. But, as I heard him say that—and I have often thought so before and since—I wondered very much how far that action, by which men are beginning to turn to direct industrial action instead of to the vote, is due to the fact that they have gained the view that our voting and representative system is ineffectual and not working properly. That may or may not be so; at least, I know this, that anything that tends to diminish the capacity of the private Member of Parliament to act as the direct spokesman for his constituency upon matters which affect their purses, their lives, their liberty, their thoughts, or whatever it may be, is directly acting against the reassertion of the self-respect and self-esteem of this House for which the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University pleads, and which, in the long run, depends on its place in the affections and the hearts of the people outside. I take it that it is rather a serious objection. But, as I began by saying, I recognise, as I think most of us do, the pressure which makes the Government proposal probably inevitable; indeed, nothing but extreme necessity, I think, would have justified the Government in asking the House, composed as half of it is of new Members, to scrap machinery with which they have not yet had time to make themselves familiar.
I venture to think that not even the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Leader of the House, would dare to be very confident as to how these new Rules will work. They must, I think, admittedly, be experimental. In my view they are a piecemeal treatment of a far larger problem to the root of which they make very little attempt to go. It is quite obvious, even from the discussion we have had this afternoon, that they have little chance of
getting through in their present form. It is obvious, if they pass, they will pass in a reduced shape. If that be so, I would urge upon the Government to bear in mind two things. One is to recognise, admit, and act as if these Rules were frankly experimental; and secondly, and of more importance, I would ask the Attorney-General to convey to the Leader of the House, who for the moment is not here, and to the Prime Minister, the strong feeling that exists in many quarters of the House that this is a piecemeal treatment of a great subject, with the hope that they would employ time during the experimental stage, by instituting a serious inquiry into the comparative merits of the larger scheme in order that as time goes on and they see how the experiment works, and they have data to proceed upon, they will decide that the wider departure is in the interests of the nation. My own conviction is, and it is one which is shared, as I know, by a great many Members in all quarters of the House, that if the Government were to institute such an inquiry as that they would be going a long way towards finding not only a partial, but a complete and permanent solution by which this House would be left free to deal with matters which concern the whole of the United Kingdom and the Empire at large; at the same time enabling matters of less than United Kingdom concern to be dealt with by subordinate assemblies in every part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: As a Member who has had a good deal of experience in connection with the Grand Committees of this House, and as one of the Panel of Chairmen, I do feel how most loyal the work of the Grand Committees has been. As regards legislation, I think that work might very well be extended and increased and more confidence put in the work of the Grand Committees. One or two points have already been mentioned why their decisions happen to be more independent and more often for the businesslike development of the Bill than the discussions which take place in this House. One reason is that all Members, or practically all Members in attendance at the Committee, on the particular day hear all the discussion on an Amendment and vote upon it. If they are away, they do not get the chance of voting, because there is no Division Bell rung; there is only a moment or two left for anyone to look along the
Corridor to see if any Member is outside. Therefore you get an intelligent decision, and one that does not necessarily throw out the Government—whichever Government it is which is promoting the Bill. That, I think, is a distinct advantage. I feel that more Bills, and more important Bills, and more controversial Bills, might be sent upstairs. There is no reason why the Whips of particular parties, or their delegates, should not be in attendance to see that their members do attend and so procure the close attention needed so that, as suggested here, the work may be very largely extended.
There is another advantage in the discussion to which, I think, one speaker has alluded. That refers to Standing Order No. 19, which provides against irrelevance or repetition. The Standing Order says:—
Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in Debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.
It has been pointed out that the Chairman of the House here has practically no power—though we have seen it occasionally done—or has found it impossible to enforce that rule. A Member comes in and fires off a speech very likely on the same lines as another Member who has just left the Chamber. Neither has heard the other. Only the reporter of the Official Debates Staff in the gallery, who has taken down the speeches, knows what useless repetition it is. The main difference between this House and Grand Committee is that the Chairman of the Grand Committee has the whole Committee behind him when he calls attention to the fact that the Member on his feet is repeating what another Member has said. Thus the Chairman is backed up by the Committee, and this is one of the secrets of the success of the Committee's labours and of their progress with the matter in hand. I feel all these points work in favour, not only of progress, but businesslike progress, in the legislation which is submitted to Grand Committees upstairs. Therefore, I welcome the proposals of the Government to make more direct, practical use of these Committees. I think they might very well be extended in time. Whether certain limits should be put upon them remains for the House to consider. Then there is a great difficulty raised in Committee in
connection with the self-extension that is provided for here. Two or three Members, it may be, want to come downstairs to ask questions, or to join in the Debate, and they often upset, or tend to upset, the decision which the bulk of the Committee would gladly see, and therefore it would be useful for them to keep at work. if need be, longer than the present house allow.
I apoligise for dealing with these details, but I think I am possibly speaking to a good number of new Members of the House who have had no experience of our Committees. I do feel, however, that the proposal of the Government to refer Estimates to these Committees is a very doubtful one. I cannot see any advantage in it. I was a member of the National Expenditure Committee, which sat for eighteen months upstairs, to consider these questions of procedure, and in their conclusions, and recommendation No. 16, I can see no contemplation of any reference of Estimates to these Grand Committees as we understand them. It is true that there was a recommendation that a Standing Committee, or two Standing Committees, or, they said, it might be found necessary to have a third Standing Committee appointed. That, I think, meant they were to be continuous Committees, and were to consist at most of fifteen members, with the power to call officials, and to go into certain discussions. But the criticism against extending this too far is that the effect will be to release Ministers and Departments from responsibility. That, however, is quite a different method to the one proposed here. The idea was to report by a White Paper or otherwise to a Committee of the House, and so enable a Committee of the Whole House, if it so desired, to go into questions of detail. I think the main function of a Committee of the Whole House, as far as Estimates are concerned, is to air grievances. There are also questions of policy.
I am glad to see that it is contemplated, even if in a limited degree, and oven if it is curtailed by reason of pressure this Session to some extent, that the right of Members to discuss matters downstairs shall be continued. One of the reasons why progress is made upstairs is that reporters are seldom there. Occasionally, when you get a Bill of local interest, or a particular Member is known to be going to speak, his local reporter, or the agency acting for the particular local paper, may
send down, but as a rule there is no speaking to the Press, upstairs. That facilitates business. In a matter of policy, often discussed on the Estimates, I think it is an advantage to have the matter discussed on the floor of the House. I see in the first Resolution another point in regard to Standing Committees. The words are on the White Paper. They say:
The procedure in these Committees shall be the same as in the Select Committee unless the House otherwise order.
That may surprise hon. Members, and it may surprise them still more to find that the words are actually in the Standing Orders. May I point out that the procedure of Grand Committees upstairs is totally different to what is understood by a Select Committee? In the ordinary Select Committee the Chairman has power to call witnesses, and each Member has power to ask questions, and there are various details of that sort. The procedure in Grand Committee, as hon. Members know, is exactly the same as down here with the Speaker in the Chair or with the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Chair. There is no initiative in the Chairman. The words appear to be repeated here from the Standing Order, but they are very misleading. I have asked one or two of the officials if they could explain as to what was the actual allusion in these words, "Shall be the same, as in a Select Committee" was, and they said they could not. I do not at present feel that it would be of benefit to the Estimates, or for the benefit of Progress, if the Estimates were referred to Grand Committee upstairs, even if steps were taken to secure a quorum being present. There is one matter, perhaps, I might be allowed to mention, if the Government are going to refer more legislation to Grand Committee. I may say that at present there is no means of suspending a Bill in course of consideration. It may frequently happen that something will delay the procedure of the Bill and make it desirable that it should be postponed and proceeded with, it may be, a month later. That can be done in the House, which may put a Bill off for a month. But once upstairs we begin a Bill we must go through. Another Bill can be taken in the interval downstairs, but not upstairs.
There is another detail which I would commend to the consideration of the Attorney-General, that is with reference to the Scottish Grand Committee. We are talking of placing Members of this House
in their right capacities, and of the delegation of work. I have never seen why this House should be burdened by having to appoint fifteen additional Members on the Scottish Committee which consists of all the Scottish Members. The additional Members do not as a rule attend. They feel themselves out of place. We might as well, I think, leave the Scottish Committee to manage its own affairs in questions that are delegated to it, and matters of home rule, and so on, without giving effect to the Rule that necessitates the appointment of fifteen additional Members. There is another detail which, as a Chairman of the Panel, I may point out, and that is that if there is going to be a continuous sitting there should be a change in the Standing Order, by which it should be a recognised right of one Chairman to take the place of another Chairman in the case of illness or necessity. We pass an Amendment at the beginning of each Session that the Chairman may be allowed to ask another Chairman to take the place, but the Standing Order says that the Panel of Chairmen shall appoint a Chairman of each particular Committee. It does not give any power to relieve the Chairman. These are mere details, perhaps, but as we are having general review of matters embodied in many Amendments, I think I might call the attention of the Attorney-General to some of these points for the time when he is considering details. The main question, however, to which I feel I wish to call attention, or to emphasise, is that to delegate the Estimates to Grand Committee, as contemplated, will not be carrying out the recommendations of any previous Committee of this House on the subject.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think this Debate has been very interesting. I need not say that I expected a Debate, and the whole discussion of this subject, to be very interesting, and perhaps more interesting to the members of the Government who are responsible for seeing these Rules carried into effect. As the Leader of the House I have had some experience of the making of proposals of this kind before. I remember when the present Foreign Secretary made a great effort to improve the machinery of our procedure, and those who have studied the subject know what an immense amount of time was spent upon it, and how in the end we had to be content with very little progress. I can assure the House that the
Government fully realise the difficulty of any task such as that we have undertaken. If there is anything that can be represented as interfering with the rights and privileges of Members of this House there is always great difficulty to be overcome before a change of that kind can be made.
We recognise all that, but the House of Commons recognises something else, and it is that circumstances are not only unusual but unprecedented, and there has been more than four years of a terrible war, and during that time the ordinary social legislation has fallen into arrear. The War itself has created a new atmosphere in this country. Things have got to be done, and without undue delay. In these circumstances it is perfectly hopeless for the House of Commons to approach a subject like this in the frame of mind that would be adopted in ordinary times. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), in a speech of special interest, dealt largely with a subject with which he is very familiar, and he pointed out—and every hon. Member of the House must recognise it—that it is important, and it was never more important than it is now, that the position of the House of Commons, not only in our own minds but in the minds of those outside, should be one which will command due respect.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) dealt with the same subject, but I do not think that he took the whole position in his view. He said, looking at the trouble outside, that this House stands between the people of this country and action, which means revolution, and he said that if the feeling rose outside that we cannot have free discussions and things are burked, all chance of the House of Commons acting as a bulwark is gone. There is some truth in that, but there is a great deal more truth in this, that if as a result of our sticking to what is thought to be right in the method of our procedure it is found that the House of Commons cannot do the work the country expects it to do, in that case the result would be ten times more disastrous. It is true, as the Attorney-General said, that we have tried to make these proposals as modest as in our view the needs of the situation require, and that has been our aim.
I ask the House of Commons now to come down to more commonplace things
from the serious aspect I have put before it. There has never been any change in the procedure of this House which has not been held by the Opposition and by a large number of private Members to be the end of the House of Commons and to mean that everything was going to pieces. I believe that was said of another institution of which the Attorney-General is a representative. The House remembers the accounts given in some well-known novels, which did not exaggerate, of the delay in changes in our legal procedure, but it is a fact that that body of lawyers, which is as intelligent as any existing in the country, when it was contended that the old practice was an absurdity, almost as a whole opposed changes, and they argued that if the changes suggested were adopted there would be no more justice in England. We must not look at questions from that point of view. We have to look at it from the point of view that the thing has got to be done, and looking at it from that point of view I am disappointed at the reception that has been given to our proposals. I knew that they would be looked upon with great suspicion but that would be true of any proposals on this subject we could make. I am satisfied that the Member for Halifax is wrong when he says that we shall not get them through in anything like the present form. I am sure that unless we get them through in a form which makes us able to do the work we have undertaken, then we cannot undertake the work.
Look at the reception which has been given to our proposals for a devolution to Grand Committees. This has been welcomed and there has hardly been a word said upon that question. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University did not exaggerate the facts of the position when he pointed to the ordinary procedure of this House. This House does not do the work of Committees at all unless it is dealing with some great subject like Home Rule, and then the House is full, but when we come to the ordinary procedings in Committee the House does not act as a Committee in that sense. For that purpose Grand Committees are much more effective, and I hope they will do the work much better. I am sanguine enough to believe that by this arrangement, and by making the Members who belong to these Committees feel that they are dealing with these big subjects, they will take more interest in their work than they did under the old system, and their respect for the
House will be increased. I think that proposal has been generally accepted, and it will meet a very grave difficulty.
My Noble friend took exception to the idea that these Grand Committees should sit at the same time as the House of Commons. I can assure him and the House that we have no interest in the matter either one way or the other from this point of view. As a matter of fact, all these proposals which we have submitted here have been considered over and over again by those whom we thought from our experience were most competent to advise the Government, and as, a matter of fact the first draft of our proposals was in the exact form recommended by my Noble Friend. Nevertheless, we came to the conclusion that that would not work so well as the proposal we are making. All the objections to our proposals are on the assumption that the Grand Committees must sit while the House of Commons is sitting, but that is not what we propose. We propose that they shall be in the same position as the Select Committees, and if it seems necessary they should be ready to sit while the House is not sitting, if they should think it necessary to do so. All these things have been looked upon by those interested in the light of our own experience, and it seems to us that when the Standing Committees could not get through their work in the time, the probable procedure would be that they would sit from 11 or 11.30, and adjourn to enable Members to attend questions, and when there was any necessity for them going on they might meet again at 4 o'clock and go on for two or three hours. Of course, that would rest with the Standing Committees themselves, and it would depend upon whether or not on that particular day it seemed possible to do these things, having regard to the general business of the House.
Another mistake made was the idea that all the Committees would meet at once, but that is not so. We all thought on the whole this method would be better than the proposal of my Noble Friend. We want machinery that will enable the business to be done. We knew there would be much criticism, and we had some experience yesterday of the speeches made against our proposals, but I should like to see any other body of Members produce proposals which would not be subject to at least as much criticism as these. Let me look at some of the other proposals which have been made before.
One of the objections is to what is called the kangaroo closure. I was glad to find that most of the speeches recognised that that was one of the best methods of expediting business. A suggestion made by my Noble Friend that, perhaps, something could be done in the way of having the Amendments specified in advance would possibly be an advantage. I do not say it is impossible, but I see grave objection, because it is only those Members who have been on the Grand Committees who would be ready to put Amendments right away. I think, however, I may take it altogether the House is in favour of the kangaroo closure.
Now I come to the power of the guillotine to bring the Debate to a close. I want the House to consider what it is we are asking. I know it will be discussed when the time comes, and we shall defend it as well as we can; but I do ask the House of Commons, and the new Members as well as the old, to remember that, however much you prize the liberty of individual Members of this House—and the authority of hon. Members is something we have to keep in mind—we really have got to consider that the rights of private Members and individual Members ought not to be considered of such a nature as to deprive the vast majority of the House of the rights they are entitled to in this Assembly. There are none of us who has been a long time in this House who have not over and over again seen occasions when individual Members, or perhaps half a dozen, at a late sitting, have, by means of raising new Clause after new Clause, been able to keep the House sitting hour after hour against the will of 99 Members out of 100.
That is the kind of evil against which this particular proposal was intended to guard. On the face of it it seems drastic, but to put it, as it was put by one hon. Member, that a Minister can bring the discussion to an end at any time is absurd. Any proposal of this kind which tries to improve our procedure without at the same time depriving us of legitimate rights must rest on the impartiality of the Chair. I quite admit that it is undesirable to throw more responsibility on the Chair than we can help, but in reality this is not a guillotine motion enabling a Bill to be brought to an end at any time or saying that you must finish so and so at a given time. If the House only has faith in the Chair, it will recognise that it is a power which will only be used for the express purpose for which we ask it, namely, that
the rights and privileges of a particular Member shall not be used to deprive the Members as a whole of the rights to which they are entitled.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What of a minority?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I say that it depends upon the Chair. You must fall back upon the Chair. Either you must give the minority power to prevent the majority carrying out their wishes and the wishes of their constituents or you must leave a large amount of responsibility and power to the Chair. The financial proposals have been condemned by every speaker, but I am a little inclined to think that they have been condemned by a consideration of names rather than of realities. They do not, of course, mean as my hon. Friend pointed out the adoption of the proposal recommended by the Expenditure Committee. It was an entirely different proposal, and I am inclined to think, whether it can be done this Session or not—and certainly when I was at the Treasury I realised the importance of it—that we shall have to adopt as a permanent part of our machinery something which will mean a re-examination from the spending point of view of the Estimates; but I am making no promise in regard to it. That is not the object of these proposals. We are now dealing with the congestion of business and the necessity of getting through an unusual amount of work especially in this Session. After we had gone through all the other proposals we came to consider whether, without disadvantage to the country, some saving of time might not be made also in regard to the financial proposals. My Noble Friend suggested that we should even send the Budget to a Standing Committee upstairs. I wonder what our financial experts would have said if we had made that proposal.

Lord H. CECIL: The Committee stage, not the introduction.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that my Noble Friend and I mean the same thing.

Lord H. CECIL: There are two Committee Stages in a Budget. There is the Committee of Ways and Means in which the Budget is introduced, and there is the Committee stage on the Finance Bill. It seems to me that the Finance Bill could be just as well criticised in Grand Committee as any other Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I know as well as most people that there is a Committee stage of the Finance Bill, but I should be greatly surprised if the objection to sending the Estimates upstairs would not have been ten times greater if we had suggested sending the Finance Bill to a Grand Committee. We had to consider whether there could be any saving of time without damage to the public service of the House. I want to point out that in the first place this proposal is only for one year. It is a Sessional Order, and it is intended to see how it works. Its main object, from the point of view from which I am now considering it, is that it will save us something like eight or nine days in this House. Is that a disadvantage? I ask the House, and I ask old Members of the House who have had experience, to consider what happens now in the examination of the Estimates. They are not examined at all, as my Noble Friend pointed out. The only use of Supply is to criticise the policy of the Government or of the Department. Of course, if we seek to deprive the House of that opportunity, that is clearly something to which the House ought not to submit. But we do not do that. What happens now? Every old Member knows that twenty days are taken up by different subjects which are selected in the main by the Opposition of the day. The great mass of Supply goes through without discussion at all under the guillotine at the end of Supply. There are twelve days on Report, and there is not a single subject which can be considered in Committee which cannot be considered on Report. My right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) rather surprised me when he said that by carrying out this proposal we were selling our birthright for a mess of pottage. He said that after telling us that the Grand Committees were far more competent and more likely to do the detail work of examination much more thoroughly. What sense is there in that unless the House has no other opportunity of criticising policy?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was dealing with the question of the House of Commons losing its control as a House over finance. That is the principle involved.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise that. There is not a Vote of any kind under the existing proposals that can go through unless the House of Commons allows it to go through, and its control over Report is precisely the same as its control over Committee. Indeed, my right hon. Friend
showed that himself. He gave us one of the reasons why Report was not so good. He said it required a Seconder for any Amendment. Really have we come to this, that the House of Commons is selling its birthright for a mess of pottage because it will not discuss something on which two Members are not willing to act together?

Sir C. HENRY: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that this gives twelve days on Report for Supply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is twelve days altogether instead of twenty.

Sir C. HENRY: This is rather an important point. A good many of these days of Supply would be taken up by the Army and Navy, the Civil Service and Revenue Departments. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that this House would be able on Report to review the Supply relegated to the Committee upstairs.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I had not quite finished what I had to say on that subject. The effect of our proposal is that twelve days, instead of twenty, would be given to supply, but so far as those twelve days go, the House would have the same opportunity of discussing what it wants as it has under the existing arrangements. I do think, though a Standing Committee cannot do the work of such a Finance Committee as I suggest, that if it really takes an interest in the Estimates as Estimates, there is some chance of them being examined from that point of view, and that is certainly what ought to be done. I now come to the loss of opportunities for airing grievances. It is quite true that under our present system twenty days have to be given for subjects not chosen by the Government, and that under this system there will betwelve days that will come under that category. I ask the House of Commons to judge the matter by their experience and also to have a certain amount of confidence in the House and its Leader. Always during the last two years—I cannot speak for any longer period—whenever there was any general desire in the House to discuss any subject of given policy which came under Supply, we gave a day for it, unless the pressure of business was so great that it was impossible. We hope by this arrangement that there will be more time available, and that one direct result will be that there will be a far larger number of opportuni-
ties of discussing the big subjects which the House of Commons wishes to discuss instead of the smaller ones.
I think after what I have said, whatever view the House may take and however unwilling they may be to change, that they will realise that there is something to be said for our proposals. They are not so drastic as hon. Members imagine, and at all events we only ask that they should be given a trial for a year. It is necessity which has made us bring them forward. My Noble Friend spoke of the good old days of the first Pitt and of the way in which the House has lost its respect since then. In those old days the whole speaking of the House of Commons was done by a score or two of Members, and there was no need to interfere by such proposals as we are making. Now it is quite different. There are 707 Members of this House, and there is not one of them of whom we could not say, as was said by Cicero, "It is no credit to a man to be able to express what he thinks; it is a disgrace if he cannot do it." The whole of them can speak, many of them want to speak, and their constituents in many cases expect them to speak. It is an entirely new situation, and we really have got to do what we can to make the House of Commons as interesting as possible to their private Members. We certainly have to do that, and I believe this proposal will add to its interest. I do appeal to Members to face this problem now in a different spirit from that which it would have been faced at any time since I have been a Member of the House, and to realise that something of this kind has got to be done and done quickly. Whatever else may be done to retain the respect of the House of Commons, if this is not done, and we are unable to fulfil the promises which we all made, the House of Commons will be condemned for that more than on any other account.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman makes this great mistake, that he does not realise that this is the first House of Commons in which there is no Opposition. His plans are laid for the same desperate Opposition that we have known in past Parliaments. In this Parliament there can be no Opposition. There is nobody here who wishes to conduct an Opposition such as was carried on in the old days. It may be that there is more business to be done, but it cannot fail to get through this House
much more quickly than it would have done in any Parliament of which he or I have any recollection. There is this also to be remembered, that the Government could have called Parliament together earlier than it has done, and could have started its legislation earlier, if it had had the foresight to get that legislation prepared beforehand. The Government must not put the blame on private Members of Parliament if things go less quickly than they expect, because they are partly responsible through not having brought forward their measures early enough. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman makes out a fairly good case for these reforms of procedure, and I will only urge him to amend them in certain directions, partly in those indicated by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), and above all not to commit us to making the changes in the treatment of Supply a permanent instead of a temporary measure.
The origin of Parliament was, of course, to vote money for the King, but immediately Parliament was called together for that purpose it took upon itself the primary duty of redressing the grievances of the people of the country. Both the redress of grievances and the voting of money came centuries before the question of legislation by Parliament arose, and I see in the sending of Supply upstairs to a Grand Committee a serious limitation of that primary duty of Parliament. The criticism of the Executive at the present time takes place very largely at Question time, but manifestly that is unsatisfactory for all sorts of detailed criticism of any Government Department. The real reason why we debate the Estimates, be they for the Home Office, the Colonial Office, or the India Office, is that it enables us to point out to the Government what the people, of the country object to in the administration of the various Departments. For instance, when the Home Office Vote comes up we do not go into the question of how much the London police are paid, or how much the inspectors of factories cost, but we discuss the question whether conscientious objectors should continue in prison any longer. That is the only means this House has for bringing before the Government a particular point of view—it may be an unpopular one—and over and over again the criticism of private members of Govern-
ment Departments, although it very seldom results in a Vote against the Government, does induce the Government to modify, and it may be possibly radically change, its policy. I do not want these opportunities to go from the House of Commons. Perhaps the most ennobling feature of the House has been the way in which it has looked after the interests of the black races in Africa. That is done on the Colonial Vote. If we are going to send these Votes to a Grand Committee upstairs it is true those who happen to be fortunate enough to be on the Committee will be able to raise these questions, but they will only do so before an audience of twenty appointed Members, instead of one consisting of forty millions of people. The Debates in Grand Committee upstairs have certain great merits. Everybody is present throughout the sitting. A Member can write his letters and listen to the Debate at the same time, and nobody votes who has not heard all the arguments. It is very different down here. But then not a word said in Grand Committee upstairs is reported. If we want to raise the question of taxation of the natives of the Gold Coast in connection with the nut kernel and if we do it here it is reported in the newspapers which go out to East Africa and it shows the people there that we are looking after the interests of the natives. But in Grand Committee nothing of that sort can possibly take place. It is the right of criticism of the various Government Departments on the floor of the House that we desire to secure. We want our words reported, we want to be able to address an audience drawn from all sections of the House, and not merely composed of a certain number of selected Members.
I press the Government, I will not say to give way, because their proposals are merely of a temporary character for this year, but not to imagine that any legislative facility is going to achieve their object. After all, there is a great deal of unnecessary legislation; the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that many Bills passed during the last fifteen years have become dead letters, and it is not impossible that some of the Bills being prepared now, by which it is hoped to establish a new England, may also prove dead letters in the near future. I want the Government to remember that legislation is a secondary feature of Parliamentary life. The primary feature is
criticism of the Executive and the translating the complaints of the people into effective action by the legislature under the pressure of the peoples' representatives. Criticism of the Estimates may be very useful. It may be usefully carried out before the final Estimate is presented to Parliament, but the main thing is criticism of the policy of the Department. All Departments require constant criticism. They get it at Question time, but it can be applied far more effectively when the Vote for the Department is brought forward. Another point I wish to press on the right hon. Gentleman is that the Grand Committees cannot be too large. They can easily be too small. I have perhaps seen more Grand Committee work than any other hon. Member present, but over and over again I have found that of a Grand Committee which is supposed to consist of eighty members it is only possible to get twenty-five or thirty to attend, and very frequently it is not possible to get even a quorum of twenty. For instance, there was a Grand Committee on the Emigration Bill last Session. It tried to meet week after week, but only two meetings were found possible, and on the remaining eight or ten occasions no quorum could be made. If you are going to cut down the Grand Committee from eighty to fifty you will find it more difficult to get a quorum than it has been in the past. Again, these Committees are very apt to be packed. It is the right of every Member of the House to criticise every measure brought forward. If you restrict the number of the Committees, Members will very likely be ruled out either by the pressure of the Government or by the caucus, and they may be prevented sitting on Committees of the utmost importance. It may be that people who have Amendments down to the Bill may not be allowed to be on the Committee simply and solely because it is feared they may delay its passage into law. But it is often possible by putting Amendments down to make quite clear to the Government the point of view of the minority and to ultimately convince the Government of the undesirability of that particular type of legislation. But if you are going to severely restrict the numbers of the Grand Committee, to restrict the number of extra Members who may be added for a special Bill, and it is done by the Government—I do not say it is done by the right hon. Gentleman, but it is done by people who advise
him—you may keep off a Member who is interesting himself in the measure. When we come to deal with that question, I hope we shall meet with generous treatment in regard to the number of Members who can be added to the Committee for a special Bill. There is no real reason why an hon. Member should not be on several Grand Committees, because it does not follow that they will all meet on the same day.
There is one other point. The principle of the selection of Amendments is apt to work extremely harshly if the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee upstairs does not consult the Member who puts down the Amendment. If, having prepared your case and having gone to some trouble to collect your evidence, you find, at a moment's notice, your Amendment has been "kangarooed" and subsequent Clauses are being discussed, it destroys one' sheart and it puts an end to that amicable feeling which is the only possible feeling under which satisfactory legislation can be produced. I do strongly urge that the suggestion by the Noble Lord opposite in this respect should be adopted. It is quite practicable to get the Amendments printed within five days of the Committee being completed. There are rarely any Members anxious to put down, on the Report stage, Amendments to a Bill which has been in Grand Committee unless they have also been in the Committee upstairs. The fact of being on the Committee creates a real interest in the Bill. One knows the points which have caused the closest Divisions and which have aroused the keenest interest in the discussion, but, generally speaking, very few Members who have not been in Committee upstairs care to discuss a Bill on the Report stage. There are, of course, exceptions, because if a Member is kept off the Committee upstairs, as was done, I believe, on a solitary occasion, the result is that when the Bill came up on Report that hon. Member moves his Amendments. On the occasion I have referred to, I believe the hon. Member compelled the House to sit up two nights in succession to discuss his Amendments. I am afraid this drastic system of closure is directed solely against action such as that. When a Member feels he has been unfairly treated by being kept off a Committee, he naturally gets his own back when the Bill comes back to the House on Report. Although these reforms of procedure may be necessary, it is important that the one dealing with Supply going
upstairs should be merely temporary and not permanent, and, secondly, it is important that your Grand Committee should be made a true reflex of the House of Commons, and should embrace as many as possible of those who are interested; it should not be devised so as to keep off those who are interested; it should not be confined to those who can be trusted to vote straight. We want to get our work done, we want the business of the House done, and we want, at the same time, to retain the dignity of the position of the Member of Parliament. That can be accomplished if the right hon. Gentleman does not seek to use these reforms of procedure as a weapon of autocracy, and if he will give private Members a chance to do their best for their country, to impress themselves upon the legislation, and at the same time have a free hand in criticising the heads of Departments.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. SEDDON: I have listened to this Debate with very great interest, but with some considerable concern. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House almost entirely. He pointed out that we were living in new times. I remember coming into this House in 1906 as a young man with great ambitions and great desires, and one of the things that tended to break my heart was the fact that I had to come here and listen to speeches that were purely obstructive—speeches delivered against the Government by men who, when they changed their positions and came over on to the Government Benches, complained because those who were facing them were following their own example in wasting the time of the House and preventing legislation. The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) made a very interesting speech. I would not term him a mediæval, because I think he has some progressive views. [An Hon. Member: "More than you have!"] That is a matter of opinion. I am quite sure there are other people who would agree that his views are very reactionary. The Noble Lord, I think, recognises the new conditions under which we are living. It has been said, quite truly, that the Government have undertaken a great programme of social reform. The flippant remark outside the House made by the great mass of the workers is that this is merely the national gasworks, that the only, thing that is done here is to talk, and I have
heard the House described as the Stock Exchange of politics, where men with ambition simply talk because they expect to get on the Treasury Bench. That is not good, so far as this House and its authority are concerned. The Noble Lord called our attention to the fact that in the days of Pitt this House had the confidence of its Members, and had control over the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said that the House had lost its control over the country. The Noble Lord was referring to a time out of harmony with the present time, and he was reminded by the Leader of the House that it was a period when not more than a score of men would take up the time of the House. I would point out to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that the great mass of the people of this country are looking to this Chamber to remove social wrongs in the quickest possible time and to do it effectively.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you think they will do it?

Mr. SEDDON: As one who has sat on Grand Committees I say that the real work is done in Grand Committees. The Members who go upstairs have not got their eye on the Press Gallery; they are there with a desire to accelerate the legislation of the country by what they contribute. I endorse whole-heartedly the proposals of the Government, because they are merely experimental. I do not care how drastic the changes may be, if they are going to save us from greater calamities in the country and to give the people a real belief in the honesty of this Chamber and that it is trying to build England upon saner, sounder, and more just lines. I am very anxious that the housing question and all these other great reforms that have been promised, including transit, and all that is so much in arrears, shall be dealt with this Session. Unless some proposals like these are adopted, it will be physically impossible for the House in this Session or next Session, or even during its lifetime, to carry out the promises, honestly made I believe by the Government, in order to prevent a revolution taking place in this country. I, therefore, ask hon. Members, not to be carried away by the remarks of some of the older Members about the traditions and the rights of private Members of this House. Our only rights are that we
shall carry out our promises, and the only way in which we can carry out our promises is to make the machinery of legislation work so easily and smoothly that that can be done in the quickest possible time.
One of the complaints against the Government proposals is made in regard to the question of the discussion of finance. I can well understand the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) feeling very perturbed about these proposals, because when I sat in this House in other Parliaments I certainly did admire his ability and agility in chasing little details which seemed to escape the notice of every other person. In fact, he was the champion discoverer of missing commas and semicolons. I can quite understand that he will feel almost like Othello, that his occupation will be gone, if he is not able to take part in that particular work in which he excelled in former Parliaments. With regard to finance—I am ashamed to say it, but it is an honest confession—I have often been outside the House and have then come back to vote millions away. There has been no discussion whatever. We have simply been told by the Whips, "To the right" or "To the left," and we have gone to the right or left, and then next day, if we have taken the trouble to read the reports of the Debate, we have discovered that we have been enabling the Government to spend millions of money by giving that vote, when we really did not know whether giving them the right to spend it was for or against the interests of the country. In reference to finance, a number of people in this House are experts. It is not given to every man to be an expert on finance; indeed, most people like myself, who belong to the working class, have never had any experience in what is called "high finance." We have not talked about millions in our lives; we have been confined to dealing with shillings. It is the work of the experts to criticise the Estimates, and when they have done so in the interests of the country, then the work of this House has been done so far as the spending of the money for the nation is concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear! But this will not do it.

Mr. SEDDON: I want to make a suggestion to the Leader of the House. A complaint has been made about the lack
of attendance in Grand Committees. I would wish to see a report day by day of the attendance of each Member who is put upon a Grand Committee. Hon. Members are now in receipt of as alary, and that being the case the country has a right to know whether or not hon. Members are doing their work. The Members of this House are sent here to help in legislation and to wisely assist the Government in running the country. It is grossly unfair to the Government, to the House, and to his constituents, when a Member is returned to this House and fails in his duty by not attending in Grand Committee or even in the Chamber itself. I do not suggest that the alteration should be made at this time, but I make the proposal sincerely in the interest of the good name of this House with the country. We have to rehabilitate this House in the good opinion of the country. We can do it when they know that everyone sent here is doing his duty to the country and not merely drawing his money as an absent Member. I hope the Leader of the House will maintain the position he has taken up. He has told us that these proposals are the result of inquiry, and the very best the Government can devise at the present time. They are merely experimental for the moment, and I ask all hon. Members to give the Government the right to put these proposals into operation for a year, so that we can get on with the legislation; then, if at the end of the year we find that they can fee amended or improved, I am quite sure the Government would be prepared to listen to the result of the experience of this Session, and if it is found that something can be improved they will readily make any improvement they can in the conduct of the business of the House, as they are very anxious to get their proposals through.

Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: I do not desire to go into the general question, because most of the points already mentioned will come up for discussion on different Amendments; but I wish particularly to say a word to the Leader of the House with regard to the provisions respecting the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) mentioned the National Expenditure Committee of last year, and the decisions to which they came. Old Members of the House will know there was a Committee on Estimates set up on the same lines as the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee of Public Accounts
is one that examines the way the money has been spent; it has the opportunity of calling before it all the officials who spend the money, and of examining them very closely upon the way in which the money has been spent—not only whether it has been spent in accordance with the general wishes of the House, but also whether it has been spent in accordance with the actual purpose for which the identical pounds were voted in Committee of the House a year before. That Committee exercised a very salutary effect upon the spending bodies of the nation, because they knew that they had an expert body—a very small body—which could call witnesses and every member of which could examine witnesses in order to make sure that the money had been spent for the exact purposes for which it was voted by the House. It is proposed that that should be extended to the Estimates, and that when the Estimates come before the House they should be referred to a small Committee—it might be a Committee of sixteen Members, like the Public Accounts Committee, or it might be a larger Committee—who should have power to call witnesses and make the permanent officials, who, after all, are responsible for the details of the Estimates, justify the items in those Estimates. It has been tried in three Sessions. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was Chairman of that Committee. In those three years the Estimates Committee went very thoroughly into one or two of the Estimates for the year. I think they took the Civil Service Estimates one year and other Estimates in other years. If the House is going to examine and keep a proper check over the Estimates in detail, it is impossible to do it in regard to more than a certain number of Estimates in the course of each Session. Hon. Members will realise that the money voted last year by millions had really been before the House in very small amounts indeed, often in token amounts as low as £25 and £20. It would be impossible for the whole House to examine Estimates in that way. Therefore, it is a great pity that the Government are not prepared to set up a Committee on Estimates which can discuss them fully and give the House a real opportunity of checking permanent officials who bring in the Estimates. The Minister, of course, brings in the Estimates in bulk. You cannot possibly make a Minister responsible for every
single item in the Estimates. If you questioned him upon any particular item he would have to go to the permanent officials close by and ask them what was the explanation, whereas you want before you the man responsible for putting the £100 or £l,000 down and make him justify not only the one answer, but the criticisms of four or five Members who know a good deal about the subject under discussion in order that, if possible, the Estimates may be reduced slightly, but at all events that the Estimates in the next year may be more carefully prepared with an eye to real economy and efficiency. Therefore I hope the Leader of the House will be able to tell us that he has not put that Estimates Committee out of his mind altogether, and that it may be possible that we shall have the Estimates Committee at the same time as his new proposal for sending the Estimates to a Committee. If he sets up the Committee of Estimates, I should like to remind old Members, and tell new Members, that it was a proposal which was made by a very strong Committee representing all sections of the House and composed of men who have had experience of every part of the House's work.
But if he adopts the Committee of Estimates, is there any use in sending the Estimates to a Grand Committee? Is it not better to let the discussion of the main lines of the Estimates go on in the House itself while the details are referred to a Select Committee? I differ from the view of the functions of this House taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood). I quite realise that we are here to take care that the grievances of the nation are properly aired—the grievances of the nation, not necessarily the grievances of individuals, and a great portion of the time of the House at present, at Question Time, and also in Committee, I believe, is taken up with very small questions which Members are asked to bring forward by their constituents. They are really Departmental questions, but on them very often we hang a whole evening or a half-evening's proceedings, with great discredit, as I think, to ourselves. What the House wants to realise, and what in the last ten or fifteen years it has forgotten, is that it is after all the great Assembly of the nation, and we are here not for the particular individual in small matters, but to see that the main work of the nation is done, and if we can leave details to a great extent and talk
more of principles, if we can begin to realise that the nation want these Bills passed—it may be right or wrong—I hope we shall set ourselves to pass these Bills, and that a good deal of the old party feeling will die away by which it was always held necessary, if a Government proposed a thing, to oppose it at once. Because it came from the Treasury Bench it was to be picked to pieces with carping party criticism, and criticism which was faked up for the moment in order to make a speech and delay business. I think that spirit has prevailed a great deal too much in the last ten or twelve years. I hope this new House will set itself much more to seeing that Acts of Parliament come out after wise and careful consideration, and that we shall not give ourselves up to small criticism and opposing just for the sake of opposing.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: Having been a Member for close on nineteen years I feel that I have some right to make some observations with regard to the suggested changes. The Leader of the House made one of his most persuasive and eloquent speeches, but I regret to tell him he has not entirely convinced me of the necessity of this proposal, and I feel sure he has not convinced a considerable number of the older Members of the House. I cannot see really the absolute necessity for the drastic changes that the Government propose to make. I earnestly trust that Members are going to consider carefully the votes they may give, because if these Rules are passed as they stand the consequences will be extremely serious for the future of Parliamentary life. I believe private Members who vote for these proposals will be depriving themselves of the last few remaining powers that they have, and they will be placing the House more and more under the control of the Government of the day. I cannot help being astonished at the fact that the first action of the Government in this entirely new Parliament should be to endeavour to remove every obstacle from their path. We had the Bill that we discussed yesterday and again this afternoon, and now we have these new proposals, whose aim and object is to clear the path of the Government and enable them to get their business through. I feel that when considering the Rules of Procedure within the walls of the House Members ought to be allowed to give a free and unfettered vote, and it would be very wrong of the Government if they imposed the Government Whips.
My first desire is to make a very strong protest against the action of the Government in having brought forward these proposals at such a moment as the present. We have here a new House of Commons, made up, more than half of it, of new Members who know absolutely nothing about the procedure within those walls, and therefore cannot be expected to judge fairly whether those Rules are right or wrong, and they will naturally follow the advice that is given them by the Government they have been sent here to support. I hope the older Members of the House will also offer their advice to the new Members with regard to these proposals. I very much regret the absence of the Foreign Secretary in Paris, because there is no man in the House who has a greater knowledge of the Rules of Procedure. I wonder whether the proposed changes mave been submitted to his consideration. It would weigh with me a good deal if I knew that they had received his complete and absolute approval. I well remember that when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman proposed the first setting up of the four Standing Committees it aroused very strong opposition from the Foreign Secretary, and if he is going to approve of the present considerable increase he has very much changed his attitude from that time. The present procedure in this House has stood the test of time, and now the Government, in order to save themselves trouble, are going to completely alter that procedure. I warn the Government that they are forging a weapon which some day in the future will be used against them. I cannot for the life of me see the real necessity for these great changes. We have a Government in office supported by the greatest majority that any Government has had in modern times, and we have a House which, at the General Election, agreed to the proposals of the Government so far as they have been foreshadowed in respect to reconstruction and social reform. I cannot see, therefore, where the obstruction which the Government evidently fear is going to come from, and which they intend to meet by the proposals now put forward. I remember that previous Governments in the early days had a way of dealing with obstruction as it arose, but that method does not appeal to the present Government. It was by an occasional all-night sitting. New Members, so far as I can see, are going to be deprived of the occasional enjoyment that we used to have
years ago of an all-night sitting. I can assure new Members that if ever they do find it necessary to oppose vehemently any action or any Bill or any policy of the Government they will gain far more honour and glory by fighting them here on the floor of the House than they can ever gain by opposing the Government in the privacy of the Committee Rooms upstairs.
The day may come again when we shall revert to party politics and we shall again have subjects of an extremely controversial character which ought to be fully discussed and debated on the floor of the House. If these Rules are passed private Members will be deprived of the few powers that are left to them. Already the Government have in their hands great powers for the prevention of obstruction. They have the Closure, and they have the Kangaroo Closure, and I do most strongly object to the new Closure which is proposed in these Rules. That is one of the things which I very much regret the Leader of the House did not tell us he could see his way to withdraw. A good many Members have accepted the proposal as to the increase of Grand Committees from four to six. I have had a certain amount of experience of Grand Committees, but not so much as my hon. Friend (Colonel Wedgwood). I was on the Committee to which he referred which dealt with the Emigration Bill, and I came here on many occasions only to be kept hanging about the lobbies waiting for a quorum which never arrived. I cannot help thinking that that moment may arrive again. At the present moment in a new House, full of new Members enthusiastic to do work, there probably will be no difficulty, but later on we shall find as Members get tired with the heavy work that is being imposed upon them by the Government, that they will be faced with the same situation in regard to Committees with which we have been faced in the past.
I ask hon. Members to think for a moment of the work that they are going to impose upon themselves if these Rules are passed. The Committees may sit at 11, 11.30, or 12 o'clock, as the Committee may arrange, and according to the new Rules they are to sit indefinitely. If hon. Members intend to attend to their duties as their constituents expect them to do they will be kept in this House from 11 or 11.30 in the morning until 11 o'clock at night.
The Government are faced with strikes all over the country, and if they impose this drudgery upon the House of Commons I venture to think that the time will come when we shall find the Members of this House striking for an eight-hour day. I can assure hon. Members that they will find an occasional all-night sitting infinitely preferable to the slavery that is going to be imposed upon them by these new Rules. Several Members have said that these Committees are an absolute necessity. That may be so, but there is one thing about these Committees, and that is that they will prevent business men here in London from attending to their duties in the House of Commons. The business men cannot get away from their business to attend Grand Committee work upstairs. Another point is that the lawyers are always prevented from being present at these Committees. The presence of lawyers is, in my opinion, essential on these Committees, because they understand far more about the framing of laws than any other Members of Parliament. What about the Law Officers of the Crown? They are going to have their hands pretty full. We are going to have three or four, or perhaps six, Committees sitting dealing with different Bills. It has always been the custom for previous Governments to have the Law Officers of the Crown present during discussions in Committee to advise the Committee as to the effect of Amendments. I think the Law Officers are going to be overwhelmed with the work to be imposed upon them by these new Rules.
I regret very much to hear from the Leader of the House that he cannot see his way to withdraw his proposals with regard to Supply. Those are the most dangerous proposals of all. With the exception of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Sir R. Williams), they have been, opposed in every speech delivered by a private Member in this Debate. They have most strongly and strenuously opposed the proposal to remove Supply upstairs. I think the Government are making one of the greatest mistakes they have ever made. They are going to establish a precedent. We are told that it is for this Session only, but it is a precedent which every Government will endeavour to follow, because it is going to ease their work. Private Members are going to deprive themselves once again of one of the few opportunities they have of ventilating grievances on the floor of this House. I
can assure hon. Members that it is no use ventilating grievances in the Committee Rooms upstairs. Nobody will pay any attention to it. The Press will not bother about it and the public is not going to bother about what happens in Committee rooms upstairs. In regard to a few of the smaller proposals contained in the Rules I am in agreement, such as the abolition of a second Division which is taken occasionally on the Second Heading of a Bill, but that is a very minor matter.
In regard to most of the main proposals contained in the Rules I am opposed to them. The Government have not treated the House at all fairly. Before submitting these proposals they might very well have formed a Committee of the older Members of the House and allowed them to consider the proposals that they were going to make. The fact is, that we have got a Government in a hurry. A day or two ago I asked one of the junior members of the Government what was the reason of these drastic changes. He said, "The Government have got to get a hustle on. They have got a lot of measures to pass." I say that they are taking now an unfair advantage of a new and inexperienced House of Commons and the country, because the Government wish to get this hustle on, is going to be served up with a whole mass of ill-considered legislation. I realise as much as any other Member of the House that the Government have got most important proposals to pass and that these ought to be passed as quickly as possible. But we have here a House of Commons which is ready to give the Government every assistance in its power with regard to proposals for reconstruction, and before proceeding to make such drastic changes as they now propose they might have given the House of Commons a chance first of seeing if they could not carry along on the old lines on which we have worked for so many years. They might for once have adopted the policy of Mr. Asquith to "Wait and See," and they might have found out whether it was really necessary to pass such Rules before proceeding to impose them at the commencement of a new Parliament.
I have discussed these Rules with many of my colleagues, many of the older Members of the House, and I have failed to meet one who is an out and out supporter of the whole of these Rules. I would appeal to the Government to withdraw their proposals, and submit them to a Committee such as I have suggested.
The proposals are ill-considered. I know that the Government will refuse to listen to the appeal which I make, and I therefore beg hon. Members to think over most carefully each vote which they give with regard to each of these new Rules, and to consider the future consequences that those new Rules will have for our Parliamentary life. If they are passed they will, I believe, make this Chamber merely the place where we shall have to register the decrees of the Government. We shall do away with the few remaining powers that we private Members have got in this House. I trust very earnestly that those Members who, like myself, are proud of the old traditions of the House of Commons, will see that the Government do not destroy those traditions by passing these Rules.

Mr. ADAMSON: The proposals now under discussion are viewed with serious misgiving by Members of the Labour party, on whose behalf I now rise to say a few words. The Attorney-General early in the Debate described these proposals as being an innocent little change in the procedure of the House.

Sir G. HEWART: dissented.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am not possibly using the exact words, but am giving the impression conveyed to my mind by certain remarks of the Attorney-General. I am not sure that the Leader of the House, who later on intervened in the Debate, took the same view of the proposals as the Attorney-General. He seemed to think that, from the point of view of the Government, the proposals were of the utmost importance in present conditions. They will undoubtedly limit the activities and reduce the opportunities of private Members and Members who are sitting in Opposition to the Government in particular. One has only to look at the manner in which the proposals of the Government seek to deal with Divisions, with the selection of Amendments, and with the closure of Debates to discover the serious limitations that will be put on private Members and the manner in which opposition to the proposals that may be brought forward by the Government later on can be circumscribed. If one looks at the proposals as they relate to Supply, there is no doubt that the Government are seeking to effect a change that will be for the good neither of this House nor of the country itself. There
has recently been a strong movement in favour of the House assuming more effective control over expenditure. If these proposals are carried into effect, instead of having more control over expenditure the House will undoubtedly have less.
I would like to know, if the proposals on the Paper are carried, will they do away with the right of private Members to move Amendments to the Motion, "That the Speaker do leave the Chair," for which right Members balloted only the other day? Further, in the event of Supply being referred to a Standing Committee, is it proposed that a Report of the Debate shall be published? This is a very important point. If more of the work of Parliament is to be done in the Committee Room, then I think that the Government will be bound seriously to consider having reports taken of the proceedings in Committee, in the same way as they have reports taken at the present time of the proceedings in this House. In the present frame of mind of the people of this country, proposals that will limit the power of the House of Commons will undoubtedly increase the dissatisfaction that is manifesting itself in certain quarters with regard to constitutional government in this country. That is a very serious thing and one which I think should receive the careful consideration of the Government. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles I am prepared to consider any reasonable proposal that will help to economise the time of this House, and which will enable us to get through a greater amount of work than we are able to accomplish under present conditions. But I am not so very sure if the way in which the Government seek to alter the Rules of Procedure is particularly calculated to accomplish that end. Let me take one of their proposals as an example. I find that it is proposed to reduce the membership of Standing Committees to forty, with the addition often. If twenty is to form the quorum, as under present conditions, I am not sure that a proposal of that kind will have the effect that the Government anticipate. I know that with the present size of Standing Committees it is sometimes very difficult to find a quorum, and again and again the proceedings in Standing Committee have had to be adjourned because of the difficulty
of finding a quorum. If you reduce the number in your Standing Committee, that difficulty is increased, and the Government may find that at least some of their proposals are not of the helpful character that they think. There are other directions than those I have named where I think that the Government could have made changes that would have economised time, and possibly enabled us to get through a greater amount of work. They could, for instance, I think, have proposed to shorten speeches in this House. I do not think it would have been very much of a hardship, at least on a large number of Members, if the length of speeches had been considerably curtailed. I think that those introducing a measure or a Motion might have a little liberty as to the length of their speeches, but the speakers who follow could be curtailed to twenty minutes or half an hour, and in that way they would be able to save a considerable amount of time.
There is one Amendment which the Government have not suggested, and which the members of the Labour party regret very much that they have not brought forward. I refer to the hours of the sittings of the House. The Members of the Labour party have never been able to see any useful purpose that is accomplished, so far as the interests of the country are concerned, by the House commencing its sittings at 2.45 in the afternoon and finishing at 11 o'clock in the evening. The tendency all over the industrial system of the country is to shorten hours, and, if not for the sake of Members of the House, I think some alteration is required in the hours of the sittings of the House in the interests of the officials and the attendants of the House. The Labour party would suggest that the House should meet at 12 noon, and adjourn at 8 o'clock. We think we should set an example as to the hours of labour, at least to a number of employers in the country. In following such a suggestion we would only be copying the example of other Parliaments in certain other countries. I understand that in America Parliament meets at 10.30 and adjourns at 4 in the afternoon, and in Holland Parliament meets at 10.30 and adjourns at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. I hope that this suggestion of ours will receive the serious consideration of the House, and particularly of the Government, before we part with the question of the reform of our procedure. The proposals of the Government are of such a
serious character that the Members of the Labour party think that the Government would be well advised not to hurriedly make the changes which are involved in the proposals under consideration. We rather take the view that instead of going on now in the method proposed to deal with these proposals, the matter should be referred to a Select Committee and a Committee made up of Members who are thoroughly conversant with the procedure of the House and the relative importance of the business that from time to time comes before the House. We think that if this matter is approached in that way it will provide a better medium for evolving some satisfactory reform, so far as the procedure of the House is concerned, and I hope that the Government will give this suggestion their serious consideration before this Debate closes.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. T. THOMSON: It may seem presumptuous on the part of one of those who have been described by an hon. Member opposite as new Members, who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever of the procedure of this House, to venture to intervene in a Debate of this kind. But it is said that sometimes outsiders see most of the game, so possibly one coming entirely new and without any preconceived ideas may possibly not be entirely out of court in making a remark or two on this subject. It seems to me from what one has seen and read outside that we could have no method of procedure more likely to hinder Bills than the present procedure of the House, and judging by the results of the past it has certainly seemed as if the means of procedure were not outlined so as to carry out business in an expeditious manner. Local authorities are perhaps not comparable in work and dignity with this House, but in most county councils and county borough councils this system of detailing work to Committees has been carried out very successfully, and I cannot but think that instead of detracting from the usefulness of a private Member this suggestion of detailing, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford suggested, all the Bills to Grand Committees would give considerably increased opportunities of usefulness to the private Member which he cannot possibly enjoy by discussion on the floor of the House, and I therefore hope the Government will follow the lines suggested in that regard. Might I suggest for the consideration of the Leader of the House the practice that is followed in some
localities of allowing Members to attend these Committees even when they are not members of the Committees themselves? That is to say, if a certain number of this House were on the various Grand Committees, it is possible that other Members might like to be present to hear discussions which are taking place, and in some local authorities that is allowed. [Hon. Members: "It is done here!"] But they cannot speak, and that is the point I was coming to. They may be present as strangers, but they cannot speak or ask questions, and that is a practice that is allowed in many localities. They may not vote or move a Resolution, but they may take part by asking questions and by speaking if any particular subject on which they have special knowledge comes up; and in this programme of social reconstruction which is coining before the House there are so many kindred subjects, such as housing, the Ministry of Health, electric power, and so forth, all matters closely associated with local work, that Members would perhaps like to be present at these various Grand Committees, which they could not do if they are only allowed to attend and speak at the meeting of the Committee of which they are special Members. It may not be a practical suggestion in this House, but it works well in certain localities. In regard to the suggestion that the Government's proposal will put a great deal of pressure on Members, I was under the impression that we had come here to make up arrears of social legislation. I was astonished at the criticism which came from the Leader of the Labour party. We are all aware that during the last four and a half tragic years industrial workers have been putting in not merely eight hours, but a considerable amount of overtime in order to keep pace with the demands of the special occasion, and I would suggest that it is our turn now to be willing to give up a considerable amount of extra time in order that these arrears of social legislation, this great programme of social reconstruction which has been outlined by the Government, may have a chance of being carried into effect in the near future. Reference was made by two previous speakers in regard to the effect of these Resolutions on the public outside, but I think their fears are unfounded. I fancy the fears may be very considerable, however, if they see that we are continuing to talk,
talk, talk without results. We shall surely be judged as an Assembly by the amount of effective legislation we turn out in the next three or four years, and by going into Grand Committees you will get more effective work done than you do on the floor of the House. Therefore, I think there is a bigger danger in our maintaining our rights of criticism and in sacrificing our rights of effective legislation, and therefore I hope the House, as I, have no doubt it will, will cordially support the Government's proposals.

Mr. RENWICK: This is the third time that I have been returned as a Member of this House. The first occasion was in 1900, when the war was in progress in South Africa. There was the usual cry at that time for legislation, and when I came to the House I found there was the usual story from the Labour Benches about the slowness of legislation. The Government of that day decided to go in for curtailing the liberty of Parliament, and especially of the private Member, but they acted differently from the way in which the present Government are acting. The Government which came into power in 1900 had the decency to wait until 1902 before they brought their measure in, but the present Government have not allowed the new Members to have the slightest experience of the present Rules before bringing in their proposals for reform, and I think it is not fair to the new Members. In 1900, as I say, I was returned to this House. In 1906 I was defeated, after we had passed Rules facilitating legislation. In 1906 a Liberal Government came into power, and took advantage of the Rules that had been passed, and got through a lot of legislation. Mark the sequel. In 1908 I came back to the House. In spite of all the legislation that had been passed by the altered Rules, I fought that election on the question of unemployment and pauperism, which were rampant in the country at that time, and I venture to say that if the House gives way to panic legislation now as it did in 1900, it will not be long before again unemployment and pauperism are rampant. We have heard through an hon. Member here that300 Bills have been passed in 276 hours. It is a very large amount of legislation, but whether it is effective in character is a very different matter. I am one of those who think the less legislation we have the better, and hon. Members would be surprised if they knew how many people outside this House
hold the same opinion, and especially business men. We do not want any altered procedure in dealing with the housing question, which we all recognise as urgent.
We all recognise that fair play for the wounded soldiers and their dependants is necessary. We also recognise that it is necessary we should try to get a certain number of people back upon the land. We recognise that all these important matters are necessary, and we are quite willing to give them the necessary support to carry them into law. But we do not want a lot of panic legislation. I am speaking now as a business man, and I would say, for God's sake, leave us alone and let us get on with our business! I am connected with one projected company who at the present moment are prepared, if conditions were favourable, to spend anything from £250,000 to £500,000 in developing new works. It is no secret. It is shipbuilding. We have got the land, and are prepared to go on with the work, but, owing to the uncertainty of legislation, we have decided to delay. That is not the only case where employers and manufacturers wish to get on with the extension of works and develop new works, all of which is stopped on account of the danger and fear of panic legislation; and I do appeal to the Government to hesitate before they further curtail the liberties of private Members.
We have heard from the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University that he wants to see the Bills considered upstairs whilst this House is not sitting. That is, to my mind, putting the cart before the horse. We have heard the extraordinary admission that you cannot get Members to attend Standing Committees now. Then what is the good of having more of those Committees? Business men will not come here at eleven o'clock in the morning and sit till eleven o'clock at night. Perhaps some think it is not advisable to have business men here. Others are of a different opinion. I think a good leaven of business men here does an enormous amount of good, but we cannot sit here from eleven in the morning till eleven at night. And I say that if you cannot get a quorum, or barely a quorum, on a Grand Committee, that is not a body to which Bills should be sent. I do hope the House will hesitate before consenting to the Government's proposals. I have no wish whatever to harass the Government. I want to support them in carrying out the
measures that are necessary. But it is stretching my loyalty very far to ask me further to curtail the privileges of private Members. This House is really a talking shop. I am quite in agreement with the Leader of the Labour party that speeches should be shorter. I moved a Resolution in the 1906 Parliament in favour of shorter speeches. The late Major Rasch also supported it, and we went on exactly the same lines. We gave the Mover of a Resolution twenty minutes or half an hour, and the other speakers ten minutes. Ten minutes are all that is necessary for a business man to put the salient points of a case. If the Government had proposed that, I should have given them unqualified support, but I cannot do so now. I will not say I will take the responsibility of voting against the Government, but if I had not heard from the Leader of the House that this was only a temporary measure, I should certainly have voted against it.

Sir F. BANBURY: One part is temporary.

Mr. RENWICK: Then I hope it will apply to the whole of the proposals. Members are sent here because they can speak. One of the leading Members sitting upon the Government Bench came to the House in 1900 and could not get an opportunity to speak, because old Members got up and spoke for half and three-quarters of an hour. I remember his coming to me one night and saying, "Renwick, I am tired of this. I cannot get an opportunity to speak, though I think I know a great deal more of the subject than many Members who speak." He is now one of the leading members of the Government. If not the most leading member. I will not mention his name. I was much struck by the remark of an hon. Member to-night when he said, "Who knows what talent there is amongst new Members?" There may be many men who are experienced in subjects brought forward, but you never find it out until they have an opportunity of speaking. They will never do it in Committee rooms, because they are not reported there. Mr. Asquith, when these proposals in 1902 were brought forward, said this—and I commend this especially to the new Members:
He maintained that to tie the tongue of the Mother of Parliaments was a dangerous task. What was Parliament but a talking machine—a machine by which not in dumb show but by the use of speech, and free speech, proposals were
forged into a shape in which they would obtain the acquiescence of the great majority of the people. This was the function of the House of Commons.
I say the function of the House of Commons is to talk—to express our views of the measures as they are brought forward. There is another prominent Member sitting on the Government Benches. I want to say a word about him. He condemned the alteration of the Rules of Procedure, and I will commend what he said to the House:
An elaborate procedure is the only method by which a minority can defend itself, and assert its influence on the Government of the country so that the doings of Parliament shall have a national character—an elaborate procedure which gives a minority the opportunity of questioning the proceedings of the majority at many stages. If I had to choose between the interest and the dignity of the House of Commons and its freedom, I would pronounce for its freedom.
So would I. I am in favour of the freedom of the House and of the Members. As one Member said to-night, we all have equal rights and we all demand the opportunity of giving expression to our views. Nearly every Bill that we shall have to deal with during the present Session will be a Money Bill, whether it has to deal with housing, land, fair play or generous treatment to wounded soldiers and dependants. They will be Money Bills—demands for money at a time when we are overloaded with taxation. It is ruining business, and unless we get to work producing the things that are necessary to pay the debt, I do not know where we shall be. Two days ago I signed a wages bill of the company of which I am chairman. £5,000 is the usual weekly bill. For the last fort-night I have had to sign for under £2,000. Why? Because large numbers of the men are out of work, at a time when they are making more money than ever they made in their lives before. I got out the return of the wages of these men on strike The labourers, even, were earning £5 10s. a week, without overtime, and the others up to £7 or £10 a week, and they were out on strike on a trumpery question. For God's sake, let us get the men to work. You will not get them to work as long as you are giving them doles. You have all heard of the story of the man who had a fit, and they ran to get brandy for him—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a very long way from the Motion before the House.

Mr. RENWICK: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I am quite prepared to keep to the
Motion. I do want Members of Parliament, and especially the new Members, to retain their freedom. I want them to have free expression, and I want to hear their views. They come here with fresh views, and we want to hear what they are. We are delighted to have the opportunity of doing so, and we do not want to stifle them practically in their infancy. For this reason, while I am not going to take the responsibility of voting against the Government, I do sincerely hope that they will make the whole of the Resolutions of a temporary character for a year only, and give us an opportunity, at the end of that time, of reconsidering them.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that the hon. Member who has just sat down did not give the name of the prominent Minister who preferred the freedom of the House to its dignity. I am in a position to give it to the House, and I will therefore do so. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not present on the Front Bench. The Minister in question is the present First Lord of the Admiralty, a very progressive Member and one with whose opinions, I feel certain, a large number of hon. Members above the Gangway are in accord.
I propose to say a few words on the different Amendments when they come forward, and therefore I shall say very little at the present moment. I should like to say, however, that I am very nearly in complete agreement with the Leader of the Labour party, with one exception. The Leader of the Labour party suggested another alteration in the Rule, namely, that the House should meet at 12 o'clock and adjourn, I think he said, at 8. The Leader of the Labour party forgot—I am sorry he is not present for the moment, but no doubt his Friends will convey this to him—an objection which, I think, is fatal to his proposal. If you are going to have the House meeting at 12 o'clock, you must have independent Members only. By that I mean Members who have not to earn their own living, but who are, from one source or another, in receipt of sufficient income to keep themselves, because it is absolutely impossible that business men can come down to this House at 12 o'clock every day of the week and remain till 8 o'clock. Consequently you would limit the House to Members of independent means, who could come down, and disregard the necessity of earning their
living. I will leave out lawyers for the moment, because, of course, lawyers can come down. I am not myself altogether adverse to having lawyers in the House. I think, on very many occasions, they are extremely useful, and I am going to point out later some occasions on which they are useful and some occasions on which they are not. I think it is evident, and I am sure the Leader of the Labour party on thinking it over will see, that his proposal is not practicable
I should like to say one or two words only on the question of Standing Committees, because, during the twenty-seven years that I have had the honour to sit in this House, I have served on a good many. There is a good deal to be said for Standing Committees, but, on the whole, I am not inclined to take quite such a rosy view of them as does the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I do not think I have often seen him on Standing Committees; I do not remember. Neither can I take quite such a rosy view as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stourbridge Division of Worcester (Mr. J. W. Wilson). There are a good many difficulties about Standing Committees. First of all, there is the difficulty of getting a quorum, and that difficulty has grown very much in the last few years. If you have four Standing Committees with a membership of from sixty to eighty, and you find it difficult to get quorums, it is a very simple proposition that if you have six Standing Committees you will find it still more difficult to get a quorum, especially if the numbers are reduced from sixty to eighty to forty to fifty. Then it has been said, and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University said it, "Oh, Members on the Grand Committees always hear the arguments and are much freer to express their views than they are down in this House." The right hon. Member for Stourbridge suggested that the Whips should be present. I am glad my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) is present. I do not know how the Whips would regard that proposal. I am not at all sure they would very much like it in addition to their labours. But how about the freedom of Debate, and of the ability to express your opinion, if you are going to express your opinion before the Whips of your party? I do not think that would tend to the freedom of debate and the
freedom of voting. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University seemed to suggest that because, on Grand Committees, the Members spoke their minds fairly freely, it necessarily followed that they voted in the same sense. That is not so. I remember one case last Session when I was on a Grand Committee and several Members said to me that they regarded the proposal with a good deal of dislike. On one particular occasion I think they all spoke against it, but when it came to a Division, several of them seeing that a Division was coming thought it advisable to go outside, and those who remained voted in absolutely a contrary direction to which they had spoken. Therefore, I do not at all think that it is certain that when you get these Grand Committees you are going to get any greater freedom of voting than you have now.
Then there is another point that has to be remembered. I remember a case in Grand Committee where a Bill was carried on the Second Reading by a majority of over 100—I think it was 120. When it went up to the Grand Committee on the first day we could not get a quorum; on the second day we found a strong number of opponents of the Bill, who would not come into the Committee Room because, by so doing, they would make a quorum and they would be in a minority. So they remained outside, and we had not got enough Members in the room to make a quorum. So that day passed. That went on for a day or two, with the result that those Members in favour of the Bill gradually found that they could not be continually attending, and one day the opponents found themselves in the majority. They came in, and by a majority of one or two, defeated every Clause in that Bill. Consequently, although that particular Bill had twice passed the Second Heading in this House. once without a Division and once, as I say, with a majority of 120, yet the result of sending it to Grand Committee was that twenty-one Members defeated entirely the wish of the House of Commons as expressed on the Second Reading. I will not weary the House, but I would give new Members to understand that this idea that sending Bills to Grand Committee is going to alter the whole procedure of the House in order to benefit it is extremely doubtful. Then there is the question of the Law Officers. There
will be six Grand Committees, and if they are going to sit at all regularly, and unless they do sit at the same time, I do not see much use in them, it will be necessary to have six Law Officers because it must be remembered it is very necessary to have a Law Officer present when you are passing a Bill. I am sure the new Member who is most desirous of passing all sorts of legislation very quickly is not desirous of passing legislation which will not work, or legislation which will have to be altered or amended. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, that we must have all the Law Officers present. What has happened in the Grand Committees? We sometimes get a Law Officer. When it is a Scottish Bill the Law Officer is an Englishman, and he says, it may be: "Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to do the best I can, but I am a Scottish Law Officer, and, of course, the laws of Scotland are not the same as the laws of England. I think myself, though I cannot, of course, be pledged to it that such and such is an interpretation of a Clause or of a law." Sometimes the reverse takes place, and you get an English Law Officer at the Scottish Committee. All these things have taken place. Are you going to require the six Law Officers to be present? I am not sure if there are six?

Sir G. HEWART: Just six

Sir F. BANBURY: Is not one an Irish Law Officer?

Sir G. HEWART: Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY: Well, I do not want to say anything disrespectful of the Irish Law Officers, or, very often in a somewhat similar case, the Scottish Law Officer. But some of us have noticed that occasionally an amiable Gentleman comes and sits down on the Front Bench. Some Member asks who that is, and he is told: "Oh, that is a Scottish Law Officer, or the Irish Law Officer, who is not very often here." So that I do not think that these hon. and learned Gentlemen will be of very great assistance to us. I should like to know why there is any necessity for this alteration of Rules? We have here a new Parliament. I gather from speeches made by hon. Members that they are anxious to promote legislation. Unfortunately, we have not with us any Irish Nationalists, or practically none. They were celebrated for making long speeches, and were very difficult to call to order, because they
knew the rules by breaking them. I do not suppose anything of that sort will occur now. We have a number of Members of the Labour party all most anxious to do their duty and to pass legislation. We have also a large number of other Members who have been returned as supporters of the Coalition. Under these circumstances, I fail to see the necessity for these new rules. I should like to use an old phrase, and suggest that we should "Wait and See" how things turn out for a year or two, and what sort of Parliament this is going to be before we ask new Members to come under new rules. One must remember that there are a very large number of new Members—about 300 perhaps. Before you ask new Members to give effect to something which they know absolutely nothing about, would it not be wiser to wait. Remember, the Rules of this House are the accumulated wisdom of centuries and of our ancestors, and they have all been devised with the idea of doing the best that can be done in the interests of this House, and of the State. Old Members of this House—and in another two or three years I shall be able, I have no doubt, to say the same of this present House—the majority of Members of the old House of Commons were distinguished for their love for the House of Commons. These Rules have been gradually evolved, not, as the hon. Member said, on the model of a county council, or some new fangled body of that sort; they are the accumulated wisdom of centuries, which have made this House noted for the success of its procedure and for the way in which it has managed its business. I do not want to say anything about the remitting of Supply to a Standing Committee, because I shall have something to say when that comes on. But I would make this remark, that having been a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure which reported on this very subject last Session—a Committee which was set up for the special object—when its Report and recommendation tallied with the opinions given us by the very highest authorities in this House, from Mr. Speaker downstairs—I think it would have been only courteous that some consideration should have been given to that Report and those recommendations.

Sir EDGAR JONES: I hope the new Members of the House will not take it for granted from the course of this Debate
that silence on the part of the body of old Members suggests that they are in agreement with the criticisms of the proposals of the Government. I shall show by an illustration or two presently to new Members the opportunities and freedom they will get on the lines of the extensions laid down in the Government proposals. Before I come to these examples let me get at what is, after all, the crux of the discussion. I address myself now largely to the Labour Members because I was very disappointed to heart he speech of the Leader of the Labour party, though I am not surprised to hear some of the speeches on this side, for I have heard them many times before. The hon. Member who spoke from here said he did not want any legislation at all. Those who do not want to get on with legislation are perfectly entitled to protest against these Amendments. I am rather addressing myself to hon. Members who came here knowing that we must have legislation, that we must have it in considerable volume, and who have come hereto get it. How, I ask them, are you to get it? You certainly will not get it between now and June on the old lines. I defy any old Member acquainted with the procedure of the House to contradict my statement. It cannot be done on the old basis. I know very well, and I do not want to put it in an offensive way, that the Labour Members have, heard probably more criticism of delays in the House of Commons than probably any other Members of the House. The phrase has been used about this being "a talking shop." It is a well-known phrase used to depreciating the House of Commons in working-class circles. The Government here is making a real, genuine, and honest attempt to so amend procedure that we can get something done. The right hon. Baronet behind me (Sir F. Banbury) talked about the accumulated wisdom of centuries. We are not dealing with the accumulated wisdom, but with the accumulated cobwebs in our procedure. Nobody in this House can deny the undesirability of the present position, or that something has got to be, must be, done. What are we facing? Here are the Government's proposals in detail. I agree with a great many of the suggestions made by the Noble Lord—some of them were most admirable. I hope when we come to details the Government will be able to move somewhat in the direction he indicated.
He made constructive and practical suggestions. The Noble Lord took the point that we have got to get a lot of work done, and that it cannot be done under the old methods. Therefore, he made some contributions to the suggestions of how it could be done. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean), may I point out to him that he has not got a single Amendment on the Paper, not a single proposal as to our procedure?

Sir D. MACLEAN: That shows how entirely I support the practical proposals.

Sir E. JONES: I thought the right hon. Gentleman opposed them very seriously. He certainly opposed the whole proposal in regard to Committee of Supply, but there is no Amendment to it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is no need for an Amendment; I can vote against it

Sir E. JONES: Then there was the Leader of the Labour party who, as I said, I am sorry to see has taken up a negative attitude, and has not a single proposal at all as to how we are to get procedure in this House into some sort of shape to get through the business. Therefore the proposals of the Government hold the field. Those people who want to go on with clogged wheels and do not want legislation—very well, let them vote against the Government; let them take a negative line. I submit that those who want Government legislation through and want to contribute to the business of this House should put up alternative proposals for achieving it, and then they have a right to criticise. I am going to put two points forward to show that there is another side to this question. We have heard a good deal of criticism about Standing Committees and quorums, and so on, but it is all based upon a fallacy. It is not fair to Standing Committees to apply the criticism that has been applied largely to-day. On what occasion was it difficult to get quorums on Standing Committees? On what kind of Bills was it Standing Committees were not enthusiastic and not sufficiently attractive to draw the attendance of Members. They were Bills of comparative unimportance, small things which had been relegated to Standing Committees, but whenever you have referred a substantial Bill to a Standing Committee you never had any difficulty about a quorum.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that last Session there was the case of the Emigration Bill which was a Government Bill and was that not important?

Sir E. JONES: No, and the right hon. Gentleman himself took the line that it was not a Bill of very much consequence. Take a measure like the Coal Mines Bill Should we ever have had that Bill through this House, or would it have been so good a Bill, if it had not gone to Committee? As a matter of personal interest, I may say that I got infinitely more publicity in my Constituency and elsewhere when that Bill was before the Standing Committee than I ever got here. [An Hon. Member; "Is that why you support them"?] The hon. Member can take that view if he likes, but my argument still holds good, and it is an answer to the argument that Members would not attend because there was no reporting and no publicity. Take, for example, the two sections of the Insurance Act. There are hon. Members present who remember those measures, and hon. Members who read the procedure and are acquainted with the results. Take the one section that was threshed out here, with obstruction of the worst type, und compare it with the Unemployment Insurance Section, which was threshed out in Standing Committee. I say that the opportunities for hon. Members to do good work are infinitely greater on Standing Committees upstairs, and it would have been a good thing for the country if the other section of the Insurance Act had been dealt with by a Committee upstairs.
With regard to the Estimates, I rather think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean) and the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) have missed out one important point. I do not see the dangers that they refer to, for, after all, twelve days out of twenty are reserved for big Debates on grievances, and as a check on the Executive here on the floor of the House. That point seems to have been left out. Twelve days out of the twenty are left, and in place of the other eight we get more extended opportunities for hon. Members to raise questions of detail on administration affecting their constituencies. Let me just tell new Members what has happened in the past with regard to Supply. You have your twenty days for every sort of grievances which your constituencies want you to raise, and what happens? One big section of the House wishes to raise some great question
which may have attracted a lot of attention in the newspapers. That subject, and probably one other, will swallow up the whole day, and the ordinary private Member with some special point and grievance never gets in at all. That has been our experience for many Sessions. I have had a pocketful of speeches, and have stood up and sat down, time after time, and have never got a chance at all to deliver them, therefore, if it comes to a question of opportunities for private Members of criticism in Supply, the setting up of a number of Committees that can be almost in perpetual Session outside the twenty days of Supply, is going to be a tremendous extension of facilities and opportunities for them. I mention these points as a set-off to the criticisms we have heard in order to show that there is another side to the case.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not going into details which will be discussed here to-morrow and the next day. The main point to decide is what effect these proposals are going to have upon the dignity of the House itself. After all, the House of Commons is not a mere machine for grinding out legislation, good, bad, or indifferent. I listened to the speech of the Leader of the House, and I often feel converted by his speeches, but I think he has put the duty of controlling the House of Commons far too high and that of controlling the Executive far too low. The real grievance during the last four years was not that we did not pass legislation, but that we did not control the Executive in the management of the War. If we want the House to rise again in the estimation of the people we shall have to get back that control of the Executive which we have lost during the last few years, and which undoubtedly the Government has for the last ten years tried to get rid of. There is always the attempt, and there has been in years past, on the part of the Government, to make this House entirely subservient to the Government, and every new proposal is in the direction of making it easier for the Government to get their views through whether they are right or wrong.
If you go outside this House and ask the opinion of members of the general public upon the legislation passed during the last ten years you will find a large percentage of the people would prefer that any particular Bill had not been passed or that
many details of it should have been altered. That is the real reason why the House has fallen in the estimation of the people, because it has passed a lot of ill-considered Bills, and has failed to keep the Government in order. These proposals will allow the Government to get through legislation and to avoid criticism, but we are now a democracy and we are the only barrier between revolutionary Government and all that follows on that. I believe the House is capable of standing as a barrier between revolution and the autocracy of the Government itself. We are autocratic or revolutionary unless this House has full power to govern not merely the Government but the country itself. Our duty is not merely to pass legislation but to govern Great Britain and take our share in the Government, because each individual Member is a Member of the governing body and his first duty is to see that he governs. I think these proposals are a direct attempt to prevent every individual Member sharing in the Government of the country. There has been no obstruction during the last five or six years. The Leader of the House did give us one or two cases of obstruction, when various Members started hares of various kinds in Committee. As one who perhaps in his younger days took part in hare starting, I should like to say that I do not think I or any other Member of the Opposition who in those days kept the Committee sitting all night ever started a hare without someone or other of our leaders turning round and saying, "That was a capital hare; it ran well." In other words, my right hon. Friend, when he was in Opposition, was not against what he is good enough to call obstruction to-day.
Just consider the. Bill on which I will assume for the moment there was obstruction—the great Budget of 1909. I am prepared to say that if we, a handful of Unionist Members, had not sat up night after night, week after week, and month after month putting down Amendments to that Bill and riddling every Clause of it with arguments, it would not have been nearly as good a Bill, or perhaps I should say it would have been a much worse Bill. If anybody will take the trouble to look at the great Budget of 1909 as it was introduced and as it left this House, he will find that it is full of Amendments which were made by those handful of Members who sat on these benches, and who, you may say, were guilty of obstruction. They were guilty of putting forward points
which had certainly been overlooked by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The bulk of the Amendments moved in Committee are not moved merely out of the brain of the hon. Member who puts them forward, but are moved at the request of great bodies outside this House representing different interests, trades, or professions that come to some Member or another and say, "This Bill is going to affect us. Will you put down Amendments and have certain questions debated on the floor of the House?" I am speaking now of the main Bills of the Session. If these Bills are all to be sent upstairs to Grand Committee, I will tell you what will happen. Instead of the views of the public being put forward, where they ought to be put forward, on the floor of the House of Commons, there will be log-rolling bargains—and there have been log-rolling bargains made before now in Grand Committee—between representatives of the various interests affected and the Minister in charge of the Bill. That is not what we want to see in this Great Mother of Parliaments. We want to see the rights and interests of every trade and interest affected—labour and capital—openly debated on the floor of the House, so that no one should be injured by any Act of Parliament without the House having the opportunity of dividing upon it.
There is one further point I want to raise, and it is rather a delicate one. It is the question of the kangaroo closure by yourself. The proposal now is that the kangaroo closure should be exercised by Mr. Speaker on the Report stage after there has been no Committee on the floor of the House. Of course, at present the closure is very much modified by the fact that we have had Debates on all reasonable points on the floor of the House in Committee. That will no longer be the case. I wish some means could be found of associating someone with yourself, or perhaps it would be better that I should say with the Speaker for the time being, because we all know, from what you said a few days ago, that you will not be able to preside over us much longer and that we shall have a new Speaker without the great experience and great position which you occupy in this House. We have been in the habit of looking, and we are entitled to look, to the Speaker as the guardian of the interests of the private Member of this House. It is a very invidious position, and the Government year after year have been making the
Speaker more and more responsible for getting through the business of the Government. It is not a position that they should put on the shoulders of any Speaker. In the first place, the decision whether the closure should be put was placed on the shoulders of the Speaker. Now it is proposed that the decision of the kangaroo closure on every single Amendment shall be put on the shoulders of the Speaker. May I say—and I am sure that you will acquit me of any reflection on yourself—that quite recently, on the Debate on the Address, the Speaker found it necessary—I do not complain of it—not to call a particular Amendment in which a large number of Members, particularly new Members, were interested, and were pledged. In one of those Committees upstairs which, during the past, three years, have been formed vary largely of independent Members—the House was not a sufficient debating assembly and did not sufficiently control the Government, and these Committees, such as the Unionist Business Committee, and the Liberal War Committee, were formed in order to control the Government in the management of the War—within a few minutes eighty Members signed a request to Mr. Speaker to take a particular Amendment. It is not for me to say what the view of those Members was, but it is putting the Speaker in an invidious position when it brings him, as it were, up against a large number of Members who want, quite fairly, a particular subject discussed. I have always regarded the Speaker as the one man in this House who is fair to all Members, particularly to new Members, and to the Member who perhaps is the apostle of unpopular causes, and I do wish some proposal could be made to associate with the Speaker in this question, say, two Chairman of Standing Committees, who would bear some of the brunt of making this decision.
Lastly, I want to associate myself with the remarks which fell from the Leader of the Labour party in regard to short speeches. The long speeches, I am going to say quite frankly, come from the two Front Benches. No Member of the two Front Benches during the last few years has felt it consistent with his dignity except the Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: "And Mr. Asquith!"]—and the Leader of the late Liberal Opposition (Mr. Asquith), to speak for less than three-quarters of an hour. Most of my new hon. Friends within a very few weeks will see
that there is an idea, I do not think it is a Rule of the House, that if any Member on either of the Front Benches gets up in an important Debate he must necessarily be called upon to speak. I have gone through the Official Report time after time, and I find a succession of Front Bench Members one after another, when there is an ordinary full Opposition, getting up and speaking from three-quarters of an hour to an hour. If new Members are to have free opportunity of speaking, and, as my right hon. Friend himself said, every man has the same rights in this House, and every man is equally a Member of the House of Commons, there must be something done to curtail that power of the two Front Benches to monopolise so large a share of the time of the House. I am not altogether opposed to the proposals put forward by the Government. I realise that there must be an extension of the powers of these Standing Committees, but I have ventured to put down a few Amendments which I think will mitigate some of the severity of the proposals that are made, and above all I do ask the House and the Government, in coming to a conclusion on these various Amendments, to think of the dignity of the House and the reputation of the House outside as well as inside.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I find myself in a peculiar position of agreeing with some and disagreeing with most of what has been said by all the previous speakers, including the speakers on the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend who has just sat down wound up by some frank criticisms on the length of speeches of Members of the Front Benches. My hon. Friend is now an old Member of this House, but not so old as some other Members, and I can tell him that the Front Benches, although they may be open to criticism on the point of the length of their speeches, compare very favourably with Front Benches of old days. I remember the time if Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli did not wind up with a speech of two hours he would have been regarded as not worthy of his position or his salary. I would refer for a moment to the remarkable speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) earlier in the afternoon, in which he talked about the growing disfavour of the House of Commons in the eyes of the public. He named Mr. Asquith and the Foreign Secretary as two
of the contributors to that state of things. I think the Noble Lord was rather too sparse in his catalogue. I was in this House some six years before I became a Member of it. The two great Leaders in those days were Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone. I sat for many years in the same House with Mr. Gladstone, both when he was Prime Minister and when he was Leader of the Opposition. There was this extraordinary difference between those two great Leaders of the House and their successors. They thought it always their business to be in the House. Sir John Pope Hennessy, an Irishman who had a distinguished career, was one of the supporters Mr. Disraeli found in Ireland in a certain phase of history. Sir John went to Mr. Disraeli and asked him how he could save his Parliamentary soul? The answer was that a Member of Parliament should be always in his seat in the House of Commons except when he was in the Library reading Hansard's Debates. I must say in my own Parliamentary experience I have seen plenty of cases of men who have risen to almost inaccessible heights through the servile adoption of that recommendation. But I am bound to add that Mr. Disraeli lived up to his advice. He sat in this place hour after hour, night after night, year after year. He considered he would be wanting in his duty to the House if he did not do so. Mr. Gladstone, except for a period of two hours, generally between eight and ten p.m., as long as he was Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition, also made it his business to be in his place. I do not want to be critical about present day leaders. I must admit that the present Leader of the House lives up to the obligation of his position and is fairly constant in his attendance. Neither do I want to be critical of the Prime Minister, who has had so much to do with the carrying on of this War and who is now engaged in helping to make peace. But the office of Prime Minister is to a large extent the creation of the House of Commons and it is his duty to the House to be in his place whenever circumstances permit. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) I regard as also one of the gentlemen who have quite unintentionally no doubt, contributed to a certain want of confidence in the effectiveness of this House. New Members will not realise the full irony of a situation which was quite
familiar to us in the old days, when towards the close of the Session there were certain consultations nightly between the right hon. Baronet and whoever happened to be the Leader of the House—these conferences taking place behind Mr. Speaker's chair. In those days, too, there was another Member of the House, Mr. Caldwell, who was also seen to be in close conference with the Leader of the House behind the Chair, deciding what matters of business should be allowed to proceed. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Mr. Caldwell whose omnipotent responsibility for the business of the House led to the creation of the sense of its impotence under their dictatorship.
What is the remedy? It is the remedy alluded to quite casually by the hon. Member for Halifax, and also touched upon in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. This is meddling, muddling, and tinkering with the real root of evil. What is that real root? You and I, Mr. Speaker, were once interested in a very extraordinary transaction, in this House not many years ago. The Vote of the Foreign Secretary—the post was then held by the then Sir Edward Grey—was put on for discussion and was debated in a thin House, the hon. Members present being mostly cranks. It came to a close at a quarter-past eight, and the whole foreign policy of this Government was debated for only four and a quarter hours. At a quarter past eight we got into a highly interesting wrangle as to whether the East Surrey Water Company should be allowed to take, a certain number of gallons of water from the River Wandle. The Member for Croydon declared that if the Bill were passed typhoid would ravage Croydon. The Member for Midhurst asserted that if the Bill did not pass typhoid would ravage Midhurst. And over this little quarrel the House spent three times as much time as it had devoted to the foreign policy of our wide Empire. That is where the real evil is which is producing all these tinkering remedies proposed by the Government to-day. The real trouble is that this House has to deal not merely with the affairs of the Empire but with the pump of every village in England and Scotland. I remember meeting a South African gentleman some years before the South African War was in the contemplation of any man in the British Empire outside South Africa.
We had had, a short time previously, some activity in the town of Tipperary, and there was a question whether an Irish Member first hit a policeman or whether the policeman struck the first blow in an incident which nearly approached to a riot in an Irish town. It was observed by this gentleman that this incident would form a stable subject of discussion in the coming Session of Parliament. Indeed, we did discuss it for days and weeks, and "all the time," said, my friend, "you are paying no attention to the condition of South Africa which I tell you in twp or three years may be presenting this Empire with the question of peace or war." Take the case of India. I have been present at the discussion of thirty or forty Indian Budgets, but rarely was such a Budget introduced except at the tail end of a Session, in the hot days of July, and then to an audience consisting of twenty or thirty persons. In the meantime movements were going on in India of which we heard nothing. We gave less time to India than we gave to the East Surrey Water Company. It is all very well calling this an Imperial Parliament which has great Imperial responsibilities, but as long as you have this Parliament engaged at one hour in the discussion of an Imperial problem and at another hour in the discussion of the parish pump, so long will this be an assembly unworthy of its name and unequal to its responsibilities. That is a matter in which reform can be brought about.
I come now to the proposals of the Government. So far as regards their proposals for the transfer of business from this House to Standing Committees, I am entirely in sympathy with the proposals of the Government. I do not think that a body as large as 707 Members, as this is, is the body that can discuss the details or a measure in Committee. I must qualify that, however, with this observation: The longer I study the conflicts of opinion the more I am convinced of two propositions: first, that for executive action the smaller the body the better—I myself prefer a Committee of one; secondly, that so far as discussion and exchange of thought and conflict of opinion are concerned, the broader your basis of discuss on the better it is and the more patient discussion is. So long as discussion is inspired by good sense, good feeling, and honest purpose, the larger the body the better. I warn this House, which is full of all the energetic activities of exuberant youth, against
measures that curtail debate so long as debate is conducted with honest intention. As to the opposition which a single Member of this House has been able to give for so many years to legislation, of course the majority must establish its way, but do listen to minorities in this House, and all kinds of opinion.
Remember that legislation is not the only function of this House. I would go the length of saying that I do not think legislation is the chief function of this House. What is the chief function of this House? This House is the grand inquest of the Nation; it is the House to which the smallest, the meanest, and the most modest individual in our realm can look for redress and relief if wrong be done. Hon. Members who are old in this Chamber can remember a remarkable occasion on which a gentleman, now Judge Atherley-Jones, raised a Motion in this House. He carried that Motion against the Government. If it had not been that the Government had been brought up recently into being, and that Ireland was the iron band that kept all its different elements together, that Motion might have led to the resignation of the Minister, if not of a Ministry. Miss Cash was arrested and imprisoned for some hours off Regent Street on what was supposed to be a false charge of solicitation, and on the question of this woman's illegal arrest the Home Secretary of the period was defeated by the free vote of the House of Commons, in which he had a large majority behind him. I give that as an example of the great part this House of Commons plays, and ought always to play, in the life of our nation, namely, a Court of Appeal, to which even the meanest subject in the kingdom can come for redress. Beware lest by your rules you interfere with that great function of this Assembly. When it comes to legislation, the Government is following the example of many other legislatures in referring the details of Bills to Committees. They have that system in the French Chamber, and even to a greater extent in the Legislatures of America. I have not formed an opinion as to what the size of the Committee should be. The number is now eighty, and the Government proposes that it should be sixty, and the Noble Lord proposes that it should remain at its present figure. I do not think the matter is of very great importance. I have been a Member, and
sometimes Chairman, of many Standing Committees, and I think they had far better tone in dealing with legislation than the floor of this House where we are apt to fly off into party differences and sometimes purely political differences. With that part of the proposal of the Government I have no fault to find.
Now I come to another, namely, the reference of the Estimates to a Committee. These are proposals which require to be very severely scrutinised. This, I am afraid, may be described as a Parliament in a hurry, and more hurry the less speed very often. We have had over twenty days in Supply it is true, but we have passed £50,000,000, £60,000,000 and £70,000,000 of the public funds under the guillotine, without a moment of discussion, in four or five hours at the end of the Session. That is a travesty of the examination of the public funds of the country. I have a proposal which is an enlargement, curiously enough, and not a curtailment of the proposals of the Government. Every Government Department of this country should, as in the French Parliament, and as to a certain extent in other Parliaments of the world, be under the permanent supervision of a Committee of the House of Commons. The first Department I would put under such control is the Foreign Office. In the French Senate, and in the Chamber of Deputies, there are altogether forty commissions, each consisting of 25 members, chosen by the groups of the House. Every group is treated fairly. These Commissions range from the most ardent and Radical Republicans to the most ardent Catholic Conservatives, and they were on the best of terms with each other. I have had a peculiar experience in the last two or three years. I have been a member of an inter-Allied Parliamentary Committee, which I hope will be re-appointed. It consisted of delegates, from each of the Parliaments of the three Allied countries, England, France, and Italy. I have attended, with many of my hon. Friends, meetings of these committees in Paris and in London, and the opinion of every single British representative at that committee was one of surprise and humiliation at the position of the British members as compared with the French. The question of munitions was raised. A member of our Committee, who was rapporteur of the Munitions Committee in the French Chamber, got up, and was able to announce that on his desk every day
there was a full list of the rifles and the shells, and the cartridges, and all the other munitions of war that were produced by all the factories, State or private, in France, with observations as to whether there was a rise or fall in the production. The gentlemen, who spoke on behalf of the French representatives in regard to submarine warfare was able to give full details in regard to the work the submarine had done and the devastation it had caused. The gentlemen who represented the Foreign Affairs Commission was able to give us all the details including documentary evidence, that had been submitted to his Committee on the foreign policy of the country. On the other hand, the British representatives, who I may say, excluding myself, were a body fairly representative of the unofficial intelligence of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, sat there with our tongues tied, comparing our absolute ignorance of the inner details of the administration of our country with the full and complete knowledge of these representatives of the French people in the French Chamber. I have raised this question before and I shall continue to raise it until I hope I shall succeed. I know that I have a powerful opponent in the Leader of the House. I once had a powerful Friend in the Prime Minister until he was converted to the wrong course.

Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member does not speak for all the members of that delegation in regard to support of the French system. I chink he said that the members of the delegation agreed with him. I must be excepted.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I did not expect a good old crusted Tory like my hon. Friend would agree with anything modern. My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I said that they all agreed with me in the feeling that we were humiliated in the presence of the intimate knowledge of our French colleagues and of our own absolute ignorance. Perhaps that is too much to commit any Scotsman to. Take the conduct of the late War. I have heard all kinds of discussions in this House on that, but I held my tongue. I felt it to be my patriotic duty to hold my tongue, and to hold my tongue because I knew nothing. I could not speak like certain other hon. Gentlemen who spoke out of the abundance of their ignorance. Does, anybody suppose that if there was a Committee of this
House to deal with these matters the scandals would have gone on that went on for months, until they were exposed by a telegram in the newspapers. Although I am in favour of the appointment of Committees of this House in control and in communication with the Departments of the House, I am not in favour of the particular method of the Government. One word about the Foreign Office. It is as unwise, and it is as perilous to leave the decision of peace or war to two or three men who are called Ministers as it is to leave it to two or three men who are called Kaisers. The world is not safe for democracy so long as any small body of men, call them Ministers or call them Kaisers, are able to plunge the world into war without consulting at least with the representative of the people. Therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, whose general views on foreign politics are the same as mine, to support me in demanding that we shall have some control over the foreign relations of this country and the declaration of war other than the control which comes down to this House and tells us that the nation is at war, and then leaves us the choice of being traitors to the cause of our nation or of supporting the Government. In the present form to give the whole control of our finances to a Committee in addition to giving Ministers the power of closing discussion at any moment, is a departure from the liberties and traditions of the House of Commons which the House of Commons ought not to accept.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: The House always enjoys the speeches of the hon. Member for the Scotland division when he draws on his inexhaustible mine of Parliamentary reminiscences, but I was rather surprised at the conclusion of his speech. He told us a great deal of the difficulty in the past to be found in ventilating public grievances and matters of very great national importance. He moved the House by an eloquent passage as to its function as an appeal tribunal of the nation. He led up to the importance of the House controlling foreign policy and then after all that apparently he is in favour of these proposals.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Some of them.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: As I read these proposals we shall have far less control than ever we had before,
because in some of these matters, such as appeals in individual cases of injustice or the control of foreign policy, our only opportunities are on the Estimates or on Money Bills, and if we cut down the time allocated to this particular kind of discussion the already insufficient opportunities which we have will be still further restricted. Personally I agree that in the present emergency there is a case for some change in our Standing Orders, but I appeal to the Government to make that change, as they have in the case of the financial proposals, only a temporary one, and to pass the whole of this Amendment as a Sessional Order. It may seem a matter of small importance whether it is a Sessional Order or a permanent change, but there is this difference, that if it is a Sessional Order, we shall at the beginning of next year's sittings have it brought up again, when new Members will be in a better position to decide the matter, and when also we shall know whether there is going to be the same pressure of work in a subsequent Session as confronts us at the present time.
The Government, in the speeches both of the Leader of the House and of the Attorney-General, showed a very reasonable spirit, and I hope that this discussion to-night will impress upon them that there is a very strong feeling of uneasiness as to these proposals. I think that this discussion will shorten proceedings to-morrow if the Government will, owing to the generally expressed opinion of the House, consent to modify some of the more objectionable Amendments to the Standing Orders. It is very important, especially in this new Parliament, that the Government should avoid anything which to the country might look like trying to play a confidence trick. It would be disastrous to stampede this new House into an Amendment of Standing Orders of which they do not understand the full purport. The hon. Member opposite spoke of the procedure of county councils, but, with all respect, that cannot be compared with what we do here. Our administration here is not done by a Committee, as is the case with county councils. We are concerned with legislation, and the fact that county councils do so much of their work by committees is no argument at all in our case, because their work is almost entirely administrative.
It is very unfortunate that yesterday the Government came to this House and
sought to weaken the link which binds us to the constituencies and enables them to some extent to control this House and the Government. To-day they come down again and ask to weaken the control of the House over the Government and our administration. I think it is most unfortunate that at the beginning of this Parliament they should be taking up the position of breaking down the control of the people. I think it is also most unfortunate that the Government should propose to cut down the number of these more numerous Standing Committees. If it was possible in a smaller House to employ 320 Members on Standing Committees, then in a larger House could there not be as many, if not more? Personally, I think the only safe system is for every Member to be on one Standing Committee. If the nomination of those Standing Committees is going to be in the hands, as it was in the past, of Party Whips, it would be a very great temptation to the Party Whips to put on only absolutely reliable Members. I am afraid you would find, perhaps, in the future, that these Standing Committees would become stables for only the most reliable of Party hacks, and that only the tamest and well-broken animals would find their way on to them. I think that the only remedy for that is to give more power to the Selection Committee and increase the numbers of it, so that all Members, whatever their views and their independence, would find that they could do work of that kind.
I would also mention the great danger there is of leaving the control to the Speaker of selecting Amendments. There is no Assembly in the world which pays greater deference to the Chair than we do in the House of Commons. A strong Chair is of enormous importance owing to the diversity of our interests and the occasional turbulence of our proceedings. It is essential that the Speaker should be above party and independent of the Government. To ask the Chair in such an Assembly as this to select Amendments is putting on the occupant a dangerous task which is inconsistent with real impartiality. It would be disastrous if in the opinion of this House the Speaker is ever considered to be tempted to choose Amendments with a view to assisting the conduct of business by the Government of the day. After all, it is a very difficult task for any Chairman to know the drift of an
Amendment until he has heard it argued. He cannot possibly tell what is in the minds of hon. Members, and the only way is to hear a brief account of the objects of the Amendment before whatever authority which decides what Amendments are to be taken comes to a decision. I remember a case of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) on the Act which was to apply Conscription to Ireland. He put down an Amendment to turn ''may" into "shall.' That Amendment was of enormous importance, and if the right hon. Baronet had been allowed to move it, it would have put the Government in an extremely difficult position. The Chairman of Committees in this House did not call that Amendment, and very likely did not realise the great importance of it; but it caused great ill-feeling. I think that kind of occurrence, if it becomes common, will do very much to shake the respect which is felt by all parties for the Chair in this House. I do not think the solution of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University is really practicable, as I do not think it is possible to put down Amendments five days ahead. There might be many consequential Amendments necessary. The only solution which would remove soreness from the minds of those Members whose Amendments are not called is that they should be given an opportunity in a speech of three or four minutes only of explaining the object of their Amendments before they are passed over, and I am putting down an Amendment in Committee which I hope the Government will accept to enable that explanation to be made. I think it is a very unfortunate moment for these proposals to have been made, when there is so much unrest in the country, and it is the more important to avoid anything which will weaken us in the eyes of the nation. Our only hope of peaceful times during demobilisation is a really strong House of Commons capable of controlling our own difficulties and our own weaknesses, and I hope the Government will show the same reasonable spirit on these proposals as they did on the Re-election of Ministers Bill. The need of reform is admitted, and if the Government will meet us in some of these Amendments I am sure they will find that the business of the Session will be facilitated. We have got a very difficult task in emergency measures of reconstruction.
They are just as urgent and difficult as the emergency war measures which confronted the last Parliament. Those measures occasioned an unprecedented waste of public money and of public effort, and I do hope that we shall avoid the mistakes which were then made. We have learned the danger of giving too much control to a bureaucracy which the Government is not strong enough really to supervise. Let us alter our machinery by all means, but let us alter it so as to reassure public opinion and to give back to this House, and not merely to the Government, effective control over legislation and expenditure, and not least over the administration of the country.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will make an appeal to hon. Members to let the discussion come to an end. We have had a very free discussion, and I was anxious that there should be, so that the House should feel that the first stage of these Resolutions had been discussed without haste. We wish to take a small Bill to-night to which I understand there is no opposition.

Question, "That the proposals, of the Government relating to procedure be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Further proceeding adjourned till To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This one-clause Bill has been pressed on all parties of the London County Council. In consequence of the growth of the electorate candidates for municipal elections would incur increased expenses. I may say that under the old scale there is an average of 14,000 electors to a division; now there are 26,000. The expenditure allowable to a candidate was £197 at 3d. per elector. If it were on the same scale now it would amount to £349, and great difficulty is found in getting candidates to expend that large sum of money. It is felt that that expenditure is more than they ought to be called upon to incur in this class of contest. The authorities, the London
County Council particularly, are requesting us to give him the sum allowed per elector reduced from 3d. to 2d. That would mean on the existing electorate that the average expenditure would be £241 per division as against £197. If this is to apply to the coming elections in London it must become law in a few days. There is only a single Clause which I will read to the House:
Sub-section (1) of Section five of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884 (which prescribes the maximum amount of the expenses of candidates at a municipal election), shall have effect, both as originally enacted and as applied by any other Act, as though 'twopence for each elector' were substituted for 'threepence for each elector.' 
It is confined to one point, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading this evening at very short notice. If any Amendment is suggested, we will consider it so as to get it through as soon as possible.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a very small Bill, and it looks a, very innocent Bill, but I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman has recognised the fact that many candidates have already entered into the necessary contracts as regards printing, and I can quite realise that if, for instance, this Bill becomes law as it is, there will be a great many petitions brought forward after the elections have been fought, with the natural result that many candidates will have to be unseated. It was my intention to move the rejection of the Bill, but, after the olive branch which the right hon. Gentleman has just held out, it would be very invidious for me to do so. But I am going to see whether he will meet us in this way, if, for instance, when the Bill comes to the next stage he will undertake, on behalf of the Government, to bring forward an Amendment making omission from this Bill of those who are fighting the county council elections on 6th March. If he is prepared to bring forward a Clause which will make it perfectly safe for those candidates, then, so far as I am concerned, I shall not take any steps to stop the progress of this Bill; but, if he is not in a position to give that undertaking, I am afraid we shall be very reluctantly compelled to move a drastic Amendment in Committee. Perhaps he will say whether he is able to bring in an Amendment to that effect?

Dr. ADDISON: By the leave of the House, and if the hon. Member will allow me to confer on the matter, I think it may be possible, quite fairly and in accordance with his desires, to meet the point so far as he wishes, and I shall be glad to discuss with him and his Friends an Amendment to be moved in Committee. It has been represented to me by the county council that certain candidates may, for example, have entered into contracts for printing on the old London standard before the passing of this Act, and I am sure none of us desire to cause any hardship. I think it will be possible for me to avoid that.

Sir W. H. DAVISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider an Amendment to provide that a deposit shall be paid by candidates in the same way as at the recent Parliamentary election, which should be forfeited in the event of candidates not obtaining, say, one-eighth of the votes? This would save unnecessary expense being incurred through freak candidates who have no chance of securing election.

Dr. ADDISON: On that matter I can again only speak by leave of the House. I am sure the House will agree that there are a good many points in connection with this measure which we might deal with if we have time, and I think that very possibly there will be some other occasion when these matters will require attention. I think, however, that this particular Amendment would be outside the scope of the Bill, and I hope that as far as possible the House will agree to confine it to the specific matter involved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Mr. Pratt.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES).

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the charges of Returning Officers at Parliamentary Elections.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in, upon the said Resolution, by Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Pratt.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES) BILL,—"to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1918, with respect to the mode of payment of the charges of returning officers," I presented accordingly, and read the first time.

To be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.